3rd Cumulative WW2 History Quiz

[Hornblower]

It was day 2 of Frost holding the bridge. The second lift/drop was due that day at 1pm (due to fog it didn't happen until a few hours later and most men fell in German occupied areas). Perhaps Frost assumed that the noise of the 9th SS recce was the sounds of the hoped for relief column of machine gun jeeps due that day?

 

[privatehudson]

Nope it would definately have been XXX corps due to what he would have seen as opposed to what he heard.

 

[nonconformist]

Were the Germans coming from the wrong direction; ie the Paras had landed behind the SS, and the SS were coming from the direction the reinforcements would have?

 

[privatehudson]

Well yes the recce troops did come from the direction XXX corps would have but that's not the answer I'm after.

 

[dgfred]

Didn't the 43rd Wessex or some other 'armored' infantry unit reach the river
area way ahead of XXX corps? Is that a possible answer? Wild guess.

 

[privatehudson]

43rd were part of XXX corps But no, no other part of the Allied ground forces caused confusion, it was something a German did.

 

[nonconformist]

Drive on the left?

 

[Wotan]

Playing a bagpipe???

 

[Asclepius]

This had better be a good answer I'm just dying to get my books out. For the life of me I can't think what you are on about!

 

[FriendlyFire]

This better not be one of hudson TRICK questions

1 - the paras being dropped would not have know that strong SS units were moved in the area recently. Nor did intelligence know of the number of operational panzers else the operation would have been called off.

2- SS units had reported that they had no operation tanks. This was done for two reasons to pressure OKH for reinforcements and to prevent the transfeer of the few remaning tanks. The SS did have operational tanks which they kept.

3-The Germans managed to capture details plans of the entire market garden

4- the Panzer commander was a veteran of the Eastern front. Where "Bluff" tactics were often used as a ruse to confuse the enemy until it was too late.

My educated guess would be. That the Germans had also learnt about the recognition lights which would be used by the British tanks and the operational details for the releif of the airbourne troops. Could the german commander have used this to trick the British as some kind of deception ? No doubt allow hes armoured unit to breach british line before they could be correctly identified ?

Which is why Ford mistook the SS armoured unit for British XXX

 

[privatehudson]

I think I may have to give this one sorry.

The answer is that the 9th SS recce's lead vehicle was in fact a Humber IV armoured car that had been captured from the British in France. First contact with XXX corps would almost certainly have been with it's lead recce units and therefore likely an armoured car, in fact exactly like the one leading the attack by the Germans.

No-one knows which vehicle Grabner (the Recce batallion's commanding officer) was in during the attack, but they suspect it may have been the Humber as it matches his flamboyant style to lead from the front. They do know he died in the attack along with most of his men. Their plan seems to have been to attack the British when they were least alert and use suprise to sweep over the Bridge, followed by superior firepower to drive the British out. Unfortunately the Germans had seriously underestimated the strength of the British positions and once Frost's men realised what was happening the Germans were decimated. A few German survivors managed to escape Northwards to fight again (probably by driving like a bat out of hell through the British positions) but most were either killed or captured.

Asclepius came the closest I'd say and should go next, but to the best of my knowledge A Bridge Too Far doesn't actually show the Humber during the scene showing the fateful attack. Even if it did, showing one of the vehicles as British wouldn't have been a mistake for a change!

 

[Asclepius]

Grrrr. I think you're definitely off-side with this one. That goal doesn't count.

My sources list almost every vehicle that came over the bridge on the evening of the 17th/18th and the first vehicle across (that was destroyed) was an SdKfz 250 from the 9 SS recce battalion. In fact there aren't any British vehicles listed at all !!

Can we swap sources? I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

 

[privatehudson]

The only source I have right to hand at the moment is the Rapid Fire campaign guide to Arnhem but I'm 99% sure that the info is in Kershaw's It never Snows in September as well which I have but can't find just now. Kershaw's book is unbeaten for the German aspect of the fighting, so if it's in there that's good enough for me

Edit: Just found it

Page 129 of the Kershaw's book says

Like a Grand Prix start with exhausts roaruing, vehicles lurched forward, drivers racing through gears, accelerating to maximum speed as quickly as possible. Graebner, extrovert as ever was near the front, leading operations from a converted British Humber armoured car, probably captured in Normandy.

I made a slight error in that I didn't realise they knew he was in the car itself, and it's possible it may not have been the first, but hey it has been 2 years since I read the book. I'm sure there's other sources about though, a quick google search brings up pleanty of discussions of other sources that mention the vehicle.

The other point is that the attack didn't take place on the evening of the 17th/18th but the morning of the 18th. The absense of the vehicle in your source could relate to this.

 

[Asclepius]

Hey, I just found the exact same quote in Kershaw as well! Only trouble is the latest sources seem to be a little more specific. The OoB's from Dugdale and a book by the Arnhem expert Marcel Zwarts have identified nearly all of the vehicles that were destroyed on the bridge. The first five across were Puma's and made it safely, but the rest appear to have only been German armoured cars (mostly 250's) or trucks. Neither of them mention a Humber, anyway.

(The unit left Nijmegen at 22:00 on the 17th and got to south of Arnhem bridge at 00:00 hours on the 18th. It planned the attack for that morning at 09:00.)

Anyhoo, the sources are contradictory and nobody got your answer so you get to have another go

 

[privatehudson]

If by that you mean the Concord book I had heard that he admitted his OOB for the 9th SS recce wasn't entirely accurate. There was a post referring to that a while back on the Feldgrau forums where Marcel was a member. The other point is that Marcel's seems to concentrate on those destroyed around or near the bridge using photos of the wrecked vehicles. If the Humber had been in the lead or near it then it could have been eliminated further away and not been included in the photos. Concentrating purely on photos of destroyed vehicles on the bridge wouldn't necessarily give a complete picture, albeit a worthwile study.

Accepting the theory that there was no Humber creates the problem of where Graebner was, for he was almost certainly in one of the lead vehicles, and yet he clearly wasn't in the Pumas as he died in the attack and his body was not recovered. It seems unlikely that he would be in one of the following vehicles to my mind given his style.

My point about the timing is that does the source list the vehicles that attacked at 9am or the vehicles as they crossed going south towards Nijmegen?

Also on 131 of Kershaw's work he mentions

SS corporal Mangua later found his commanders Humber armoured car which was taken to Arnhem, "But the commander had disappeared for good".

Edit: Finally though let me refer you to the following post on another forum which I dug up

When Gräbner attacked the bridge a day later only the armoured cars, Sd.Kfz.222, Sd.Kfz.231 and Humber get trough, all SPW were stopped.

(5th post down here: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=47207&messageid=1055942279)

By none other than Marcel Zwarts himself. You'll note the reference to his mistake on the OOB and intention to ammend the detail soon (although that was 2003 so he may have released a new version since then).

From that then it seems the Humber was there, and did make it across the bridge with the other cars but presumably was disabled soon afterwards.

 

[privatehudson]

Oh and I pass since my questions never work out too good.

 

[nonconformist]

Oh and I pass since my questions never work out too good.

I beg to differ!

 

[FriendlyFire]

Like a Grand Prix start with exhausts roaruing, vehicles lurched forward, drivers racing through gears, accelerating to maximum speed as quickly as possible. Graebner, extrovert as ever was near the front, leading operations from a converted British Humber armoured car, probably captured in Normandy.
.

Wan't the SS armoued unit deployed from the Eastern front ? The amoured unit commander i recall being a vetern of the eastern front, where an aggressive amoured charge have worked well. Which is why he choose to recklessy attempt one againt the british holding arnhemn bridge. ?

EDIT: Its also strange that given the limited fuel the Germans saved a british amoured car. With most of the panzers guttered in the battles around caen and kessel. The saving of a captured hummler could have been saved as it was good for the moral of the troops.
SS commander used a captured stern submachine gun despite the inferiority to the Mp40 pureky for moral.

 

[Asclepius]

If by that you mean the Concord book I had heard that he admitted his OOB for the 9th SS recce wasn't entirely accurate. There was a post referring to that a while back on the Feldgrau forums where Marcel was a member. The other point is that Marcel's seems to concentrate on those destroyed around or near the bridge using photos of the wrecked vehicles. If the Humber had been in the lead or near it then it could have been eliminated further away and not been included in the photos. Concentrating purely on photos of destroyed vehicles on the bridge wouldn't necessarily give a complete picture, albeit a worthwile study.

Accepting the theory that there was no Humber creates the problem of where Graebner was, for he was almost certainly in one of the lead vehicles, and yet he clearly wasn't in the Pumas as he died in the attack and his body was not recovered. It seems unlikely that he would be in one of the following vehicles to my mind given his style.

My point about the timing is that does the source list the vehicles that attacked at 9am or the vehicles as they crossed going south towards Nijmegen?

Also on 131 of Kershaw's work he mentions

SS corporal Mangua later found his commanders Humber armoured car which was taken to Arnhem, "But the commander had disappeared for good".

Edit: Finally though let me refer you to the following post on another forum which I dug up



(5th post down here: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=47207&messageid=1055942279)

By none other than Marcel Zwarts himself. You'll note the reference to his mistake on the OOB and intention to ammend the detail soon (although that was 2003 so he may have released a new version since then).

From that then it seems the Humber was there, and did make it across the bridge with the other cars but presumably was disabled soon afterwards.

Very nice bit of digging, I should never have doubted Kershaw's word. Up until this question I had always thought him faultless and it would appear that (sort of) still holds true! The irony is that Marcel is actually a member of a private forum that I visit, I could have just asked him.

Looks like the Humber was still used at Arnhem after being nicked in Normandy but it still wasn't the first to cross as the Pumas went over in the lead

p.129 Kershaw: Before them lay a dash of 600 to 700 metres, up the ramp, across the 200m span, and down the ramp into Arnhem town centre. Armoured cars would lead.[...]Armoured half tracks would follow.[...]Graebner, extrovert as ever, was near the front, [...]

Marcel lists the wrecks on the bridge after the first attack and also later after the second attempt. The list is confusing though as it includes local civilian traffic under the bridge.

Oh and there's nothing at all wrong with your question... I just dispute the answer

 

[privatehudson]

Wan't the SS armoued unit deployed from the Eastern front ?

Briefly yes. The 9th SS had previously served at Tarnopol in the east, arriving in March 1944 and leaving around a week after D-Day to oppose the landings. It arrived in Normandy in late June 1944 and was heavily involved in the fighting there and the subsequent retreat across France just prior to Market Garden.

The amoured unit commander i recall being a vetern of the eastern front, where an aggressive amoured charge have worked well. Which is why he choose to recklessy attempt one againt the british holding arnhemn bridge. ?

Well it is of course hard to be sure of his motivations, but Kershaw thinks that he attacked at 9am because the British tended to "Stand-to" at dawn, but by 9am they would be stood down and unprepared. He certainly knew the rough positions of the British Paras, even if not their exact stregnth. Kershaw specullates that he expected to emulate the sucess of a previous operation Grabner launched at Noyers Bocage (for which he was awarded the Knight's Cross just a few hours before he died) which was quite similar in style. He further suggests that like many "armoured types" Grabner had a deep disdain for the qualities of infantry in general and light infantry especially and probably didn't expect the British would recover quickly enough to stop him.

Unlike the other engagements though Frost's men had an excellent position. Grabner's force could only approach Frost's from one direction and most of his vehicles were seriously exposed due to being open topped and the British occupying high buildings near the bridge. Even light infantry can drop a grenade after all!