Paul Gräbner's fate
Herbert Ackermans
Today I read in a book that Paul Grabner's body has never been
recovered
after his 9th SS Hohenstaufen reconnaisance convoy tried to cross the
Arnhem
bridge.
I knew he died on the bridge, but not that his body was never found.
Is it also true he used a Daimler Scoutcar in that action?
W. Lydecker
I never heard that name mentioned
at the Arnhem Bridge. There was a Knights Cross winner, Viktor Graebner
who led an ill fated charge of 22 vehicles across the bridge on 9\18.
Graebner was in a captured Humber armored car. A few
vehicles actually got across the bridge, most didn't. The SS were
slaughtered as the British Paras cheered "Whoa Mahomet!" Grabner was
dead 24 hours after receiving the Ritterkreuz. Strangely, it
seems his body was *not* found. Was he one of the men who leaped off
the bridge, and swept away by the fabled Rhine?
--
Herbert Ackermans
"W. Lydecker" <janu...@webtv.net> schreef in bericht
news:c0pjhg$l2i$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> I never heard that name mentioned
> at the Arnhem Bridge. There was a Knights Cross winner, Viktor Graebner
> who led an ill fated charge of 22 vehicles across the bridge on 9\18.
> Graebner was in a captured Humber armored car. A few
> vehicles actually got across the bridge, most didn't. The SS were
> slaughtered as the British Paras cheered "Whoa Mahomet!" Grabner was
> dead 24 hours after receiving the Ritterkreuz. Strangely, it
> seems his body was *not* found. Was he one of the men who leaped off
> the bridge, and swept away by the fabled Rhine?
Hi,
That might be plausible. But I've read both firstnames Paul and Viktor. The
wat it is depicted in "A Bridge Too Far" is that his vehicle was ablaze and
that he died inside. It's been a while since I read the book.
Also, the build up of his charge, it's been stated that the first 2 vehicles
were SdKfz 234 Puma's, which crossed the bridge almost unhindered. The bulk
of the rest of his charge has been described as mostly SPWs, which could be
either SdKfz 250's or 251's, but maybe 222's are also possible.
The aerial photographs are from such a height that identification is nigh
impossible. The painting that covered the book ABTF shows a number of 251's.
Anyone have more (accurate?) info?
--
W. Lydecker
"half-tracks" and "fully laden lorries". You can imagine a battalion of
paratroopers firing mostly down on no roof vehicles moving no faster
than 25 mph. Add mortars and lobbed grenades landing in open, full
half-tracks, you have ducks-in-a barrel slaughter. Once lead
vehicles stopped after drivers killed, you had traffic jam - slaughter.
Even if Graebner burned, they'd still find his remains on Sept. 22.
There was a book last year, using models that gave a pretty good account
of the Bridge To Far battle. Don't know the title or author.
--
Andrew Clark
"W. Lydecker" <janu...@webtv.net> wrote
> You can imagine a battalion of paratroopers firing
> mostly down on no roof vehicles moving no faster
> than 25 mph. Add mortars and lobbed grenades
> landing in open, full half-tracks, you have ducks-
> in-a barrel slaughter.
This sounds pretty typical of Waffen SS tactical skills.
Pointless suicidal charges were something of a speciality,
which helps to explain the Waffen SS' catastrophic casualty
rate.
--
Herbert Ackermans
"Andrew Clark" <acl...@starcottDELETETHISBIT.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in
bericht news:c0tfr1$l3s$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> This sounds pretty typical of Waffen SS tactical skills.
> Pointless suicidal charges were something of a speciality,
> which helps to explain the Waffen SS' catastrophic casualty
> rate.
Given this particular action, what other option was there?
The recon-group had been ordered to link up in Arnhem, and most German APC's
were open topped, especially the 250-251.
This group had no other option, the rail-bridge was out, the ferry was not
an option either, so only the road down the bridge was open.
--
Martin Rapier
news:c0r8me$pmq$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
{snip}
> That might be plausible. But I've read both firstnames Paul and Viktor.
The
Viktor Graebner is his more commonly used name.
> wat it is depicted in "A Bridge Too Far" is that his vehicle was ablaze
and
> that he died inside. It's been a while since I read the book.
Umm, bit of dramatic licence there, in the film he is depicted as a
tall jut
jawed silent 'Aryan hero' type, whereas IRL he was reputedly
headstrong &
impetuous and was also rather short & fat!
> Also, the build up of his charge, it's been stated that the first 2
vehicles
> were SdKfz 234 Puma's, which crossed the bridge almost unhindered. The
bulk
> of the rest of his charge has been described as mostly SPWs, which could
be
> either SdKfz 250's or 251's, but maybe 222's are also possible.
Most of the functioning armoured vehicles available to 9th SS were
concentrated in the recon battalion, including a number of SP guns
(presumably on halftrack chassis), so I would expect there to be a
wide
variety of vehicle types, including both Sdkfz 250 and 251 variants.
Detachments were left both at Nijmegen and on the south side of the
bridge
though - IIRC the assault was only conducted by two companies with
fire
support from a third.
> The aerial photographs are from such a height that identification is nigh
> impossible. The painting that covered the book ABTF shows a number of
251's.
In Kerhsaws 'It Never Snows in September' are some much more detailed
aerial photos rather than the more commonly seen blurry one of the
bridge
covered in wreckage. The majority of the vehicles appear to 250s, but
fully
a third of the German losses were accounted for by a single 6pdr AT
gun
which destroyed seven vehicles on its own - you can make out the hole
in the
concrete wall it shot out first, then picked the german vehicles off
one by
one as they passed.
I have also read that Graebner was in a captured British armoured car,
but I
can't make out any such vehicle in the photos.
Marcel Zwarts in 'German Armoured Units at Arnhem, Sept 1944' lists
the
armoured vehicle strength of 9th SS PzAA as:
10 x Sdkfz 234/1 or 234/3
15 x Sdkfx 251/19
15 x Sdkfz 250 & 251
However I suspect this must be a misprint as the 251/19 is a mobile
telephone exchange! The 251/9 is the Stummel which seems rather more
likely,
giving the Abteilung an armoured car company, an SP gun company & a
panzergrenadier company, plus presumably some guys in trucks as well
as are
mentioned in all the accounts. No mention of captured vehicles at all,
although it is possible they are included in the armoured car company,
or
more likely, in battalion HQ (if the Humber was Graebners personal
vehicle).
Cheers
Martin
Martin Rapier
{snip}
> > Pointless suicidal charges were something of a speciality,
> > which helps to explain the Waffen SS' catastrophic casualty
> > rate.
>
> Given this particular action, what other option was there?
It seems a little ironic that the 9th SS recon group didn't conduct better
recon of the position on the north side of the bridge before charging
headlong across it. It was certainly not German doctrine to conduct
(halftrack) mounted assaults against seriously defended positions.
> The recon-group had been ordered to link up in Arnhem, and most German
APC's
> were open topped, especially the 250-251.
See above.
> This group had no other option, the rail-bridge was out, the ferry was not
> an option either, so only the road down the bridge was open.
There is no reason why they couldn't have used the ferry, it was busy
shuttling KG Euling across the Rhine (which included a number of heavier
armoured vehicles than anything 9th SS PzAA had), so they could have hitched
a ride going in the opposite direction. It seems more likely that having
motored across the bridge without any opposition the previous evening, they
assumed that any enemy oppositon in the morning would be light - despite the
north end of the bridge being scattered with the debris from the previous
nights fighting.
Even the most cursory bit of recon would have revealed that they weren't
facing a few lightly armed paras, but the best part of three companies with
mortar, anti-tank and artillery support (as long as the ammo lasted anyway).
Cheers
Martin
--
Andrew Clark
"Herbert Ackermans" <herberta...@home.nl> wrote
> Given this particular action, what other option was there?
A tactical advance on foot using maximum use of cover and of
suppressing fire, obviously. Not a machismo suicidal charge.
W. Lydecker
bridge battle? It was in a local bookstore about six months ago. It
used models and figures to illustrate Frost's situation. Can't
remember if Oosterbeek fighting was included, but I don't think any
"Hell's Highway" fighting was shown. Title was
something like BRIDGE AT ARNHEM, or BATTLE OF ARNHEM. It
probably mentioned Graebner's vehicles available. Remember, by
September the Germans were using a hodge-podge of equipment - not the
textbook units of 42-43.
--
R ESTEY
message news:<403537c...@news.pacific.net.au>...
In the account in "A BRIDGE TOO FAR" - Ryan states the British had
laid a
necklace of mines across the road in an attempt to prevent vehicles
from
using it. His description of the battle has one of the lead vehicles
running
over one the mines proceeding on with only minor damage. Were these
"mines"
Hawkins Grenades? From what I read they contained only about 1lb of
high
explosives (Ammonal) with a crush type igniter fuse. Supposed to be
able
to disable vehicles by blowing off wheels/tracks. If so how effective
are
they at disabling a vehicle?
w
W. Lydecker
he
made his own decision. Guess he felt he needed to justify his new
Knights Cross medal. Still figure he decided a desperate leap
over the bridge, and possible drowning was preferable to a flaming
death.
Herbert Ackermans
Sounds plausible, for both issues.
About his orders, I suppose he was ordered to link up in Arnhem, but
that he
did not get the specific order to take the Rhine-bridge as his way
into
Arnhem. Also, is it not a fact the Germans in the first days greatly
underestimated the force of paratroopers that had landed?
Even with the complete plans, it still took a while for the Germans to
fully
realise what the goal of Market Garden was.
In that light, Grabner's decision might not be that foolish. If he
expected
to encounter only a few para's armed with light weapons, racing over
the
bridge in armoured cards doesn't sound that stupid.
However, if you run your convoy into mines and a large contingent of
para's
armed with Piats and who can call in artillery, the situation is quite
different.
Since the Germans started firing first, this might imply they merely
wanted
to give suppressing fire, to allow them the cross-over safely. I can
imagine
that Grabner was mightily surprised, if not shocked, when he was
greeted
with the fire from the British troops.
W. Lydecker
Student gained a copy of the "Market" plan from a dead officer who
foolishly brought the complete plans with him. Model was not a man who
dawdled in a defensive crisis. For Graebner (or anyone else) to
think the bridge would be held by only a few lightly armed paras, was
naive in the extreme. The Rhine bridge was a very important
objective.
--
Herbert Pocket
news:403a2944...@news.pacific.net.au...
> {snip}
> No mention of captured vehicles at all, although it is possible
> they are included in the armoured car company, or
> more likely, in battalion HQ (if the Humber was Graebners
> personal vehicle).
Martin,
I wonder if you or other knowledgeable poster might be prepared to speculate
where Gräbner might have acquired his Humber/Daimler (if indeed it is not
mythical).
AFAICS, if he was on the "island", north of Nijmegen and south of Arnhem,
from the outset of Market Garden (as I understand to be the case), then it
seems likely that this (putative) vehicle was won as a result some earlier
action - either directly from the British/Canadians or via some other German
outfit. Could it possibly have retreated all the way from Caen (Goodwood
etc.)?
Are the movements and actions of the 9th SS/Gräbner well enough documented
for anyone to be able to make a guess?
Herbert
--
Herbert Ackermans
Grabner and Frost missed each other by an hour in Arnhem. While going
to
Nijmegen, Grabner gave hourly reports of his reconnaisance. In his
journey
to and from Nijmegen, Grabner reported no enemy contact.
Also, apart from Arnhem, everywhere else, the Germans were in
dis-array
about what to do, what was going on and where to go first. The Market
Garden
plans were initialy dismissed as fakes to mislead the Germans, as the
plans
were too detailed, too elaborate. Bittrich has said in interviews,
that he
didn't even know Student had been presented with the plans of Market
Garden.
Only Harzer, I think, got word of this.
When Grabner returned to Arnhem, he was convinced that there were only
a
handful of British paras, easily subdued with some MG-covering fire.
Little
did he know that the numbers were far greater than he expected, but
also
that his opponent had such a lot of experience. There are reports from
SS-men who said the streetfighting in Arnhem was more intense and
severe
than that which they experienced in Stalingrad.
So, for all it's worth, based on the information given to him, and
what he
had seen in his trip to Nijmegen and back, Grabner did not foolishly
drive
up the bridge as some sort of last charge, but he made a decision
based on
facts. Those facts however, were outdated and inaccurate when he
returned.
Also, the most important factor for the ensuing chaos on the bridge
was that
the driver of the 3rd armoured car, after getting hit, put the gear in
reverse and crashed into the vehicle behind him. After that, the
collone got
stuck on the bridge and got hammered by the Paras with PIATS as well
as
Sherrif Thompsons' (I.I.C.) artillery.
Herbert Ackermans
"Herbert Pocket" <now...@thingy.com> schreef in bericht
news:c1gs9k$8q2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
>
> AFAICS, if he was on the "island", north of Nijmegen and south of Arnhem,
> from the outset of Market Garden (as I understand to be the case), then it
> action - either directly from the British/Canadians or via some other
German
> outfit. Could it possibly have retreated all the way from Caen (Goodwood
> etc.)?
> --
Seeing as how Grabner in his recon from Arnhem to Nijmegen reported no
contact with enemy units in his hourly reports, so it would be fair to
assume he got the Daimler from previous combat.
A Bridge Too Far describes this recon as "Tedious and boring".
As to where Grabner could've found his Humber, on 9sshohenstaufen.com
it
says that Hohenstaufen fought in France until August 21, then being
ordered
to retreat and join Model in the Netherlands on September 3rd. On
September
10th they received orders to go back to Germany for complete
refitting, and
to hand over their equipment to 10th SS Frundsberg. This did not
happen due
to Market Garden starting on September 17th, the day Hohenstaufen was
scheduled to be railed back to the homeland.
So, I gamble Grabner got it in Normandy as further combat seemed to be
too
fierce as they provided cover for the retreat out of the Falaise
pocket.
W. Lydecker
officer who supposedly finds the M-G plans) is based on a real person?
I suspect he's just a hollywood character to give Bittrich (M. Schnell)
someone to shmooze with. I don't believe Student had any SS in
his area on 9\17. * * * * * p.s. Maybe I should have said schmooze.
;-)
--
Martin Rapier
news:c1jh9b$n7g$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> Anyone know if the Hardy Kruger character (he's the SS panzer
> officer who supposedly finds the M-G plans) is based on a real person?
Isn't he supposed to be SS Brigadefuhrer Harmel? He may of course be an
amalgam of various characters for dramatic purposes.
> I suspect he's just a hollywood character to give Bittrich (M. Schnell)
> someone to shmooze with. I don't believe Student had any SS in
> his area on 9\17. * * * * * p.s. Maybe I should have said schmooze.
There was a battlegroup from IInd SS Panzer Corps with Kampfgruppe Walter
holding the front line along the Albert Canal and positions up the main
highway. IIRC a company of Panzer IVs from 9th SS and a couple of weak
panzergrenadier battalions (one from each division). These units were
largely destroyed in the initial breakout.
Cheers
Martin
--
Martin Rapier
news:c1gs9k$8q2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
{snip}
> I wonder if you or other knowledgeable poster might be prepared to
speculate
> mythical).
It would have been captured in Normandy. IInd SS Panzer Corps first
major
combat action was in late June (during Operation Epsom IIRC) and
subsequently in the vicinity of Hill 112. Plenty of seesaw fighting
and
opportunities for capturing enemy equipment - the Germans even used
the odd
captured Sherman around Hill 112, along with the Cromwell which was
famously
captured when it was left with the engine running and an enterprising
German
jumped in and drove it away!
{snip]
> outfit. Could it possibly have retreated all the way from Caen (Goodwood
> etc.)?
Yes - wheeled vehicles were far more reliable than tracked ones a
Daimler
could easly have driven back to Holland from Normandy, even without
any
spare parts.
Cheers
Martin
Herbert Ackermans
He plays a major general Ludwig. And he is also present when the
Nijmegen
bridge is taken.
However, it was General Heinz Harmel who was at Nijmegen bridge when
the
Allies took it, and it was Harmel who on numerous occassions asked for
permission to blow the Nijmegen bridge.
So, general Ludwig is a fantasy--character, as is Bobby Stout, played
by
Elliot Gould.
There's also plenty of other things not correct in the movie. Major
Julian
Cook did lead the boats crossing the Waal, but once they got to the
other
side, Cook did not go to the bridge, but went to the other side. He
also did
not yell at the british Tank commander, that was Colonel Reuben
Tucker.
Also, Frost was not there when the German soldier asked them for their
surrender at Arnhem bridge. The Tiger, depicted by a grey painted
Leopard 1,
was in reality more than one, and they crossed the bridge at night,
not
during the day.
There's numerous other bits that got changed to fit the movie, and to
make
the movie enjoyable as a movie and to keep it clear.
Martin Rapier
{snip}
> side, Cook did not go to the bridge, but went to the other side. He
> also did not yell at the british Tank commander, that was Colonel Reuben
> Tucker.
Who as I recall was Lord Carrington, the future british foreign secretary -
he certainly commanded the troop of tanks from 2nd Grenadier Guards first
across the bridge.
The film (and book) also ignored the 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards
(motorised infantry) under Lt Colonel Fitzgerald who fought their way halway
to Elst before being halted by German resistance. It was at that point that
the Guards advance ground to a halt for lack of infantry, rather than an
overwhelming desire to have a cup of tea.
Cheers
Martin
--
WalterS
Kruger plays a fictional character, SS General Ludwig, who is a
composite of Bittrich's 2 division commanders, Harmel and Harzel.
There are so many characters in the movie that I guess the director,
Richard Attenborough, didn't want to clutter it up with any more than
he had to.
Walter S
--
W. Lydecker
film. Wonder if anything good is available in an "extended" version?
Of course many feel the movie is too damn long, now. p.s.
In the credits Bittrich is Lt. General, not Obergruppenfuhrer.
--