16
   

Looking for rommel quotes

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:27 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
I'm not sure how that disagrees with anything I have said .
You wrote:
I think you will find it was a grenadier company .


I disagree. (Okay, about the fact that it was a regiment and not a company as well.)

"Infantrie", especially with the adding "zu Fuss" doesn't mean 'Grenadier'.


I've marked 'our' regiment in this list
http://i51.tinypic.com/2ykcl0y.jpg
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:29 am
@Ionus,
Well, okay, my bad.

I'd thought we were talking about 18th and early 19th century.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:31 am
@Ionus,
Okay. Obviously you know a lot about the Prussian military history and especially much more than I do.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:39 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Ah ! A misunderstanding . I know it was a regiment of foot but I was saying the grenadiers were from a grenadier company WITHIN the regiment of foot . Later most armies also added a light company within their regiments of foot . Their might even have been two or more companies depending on the regiment organisation into battalions or not .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:41 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Just a misunderstanding Walter... I was talking about the last use of the badge and how it applied to Field Marshalls . No problem .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I dont know if that is true, but it is easy to confuse Laurel Leaves and Oak Leaves, given they are both represented with nuts, and the oak leaf has many shapes .
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:50 am
@Ionus,
That's why the are named (at least in the German literature) just as "floral ornaments".
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 01:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Description of "our" regiments uniform
http://i52.tinypic.com/2aeyx47.jpg

Nothing mentioned of buttons and/or button holes ...
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:07 am
@Walter Hinteler,
You have no date attached .

Are you saying they didnt have buttons or button holes ?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:45 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

You have no date attached .


The date is easily to get, this it mentions the "Larisch regiment" = it's a description of that period.

Ionus wrote:

Are you saying they didnt have buttons or button holes ?


No, I'm not saying such.
But what I've mentioned before (I think so, at least): the buttons/button holes weren't officially regulated as part of the uniform.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 07:24 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
The date is easily to get, this it mentions the "Larisch regiment" = it's a description of that period.
That is an assumption . It could be called that any time after Larisch took command . There are several examples of various national units maintaining names for hundreds of years .

Quote:
the buttons/button holes weren't officially regulated as part of the uniform.
Yes, I think you have proven that button holes were not centrally regulated . This is at a time when some units were equipped out of the pocket of the CO . I think I have adequately shown where several units did employ this type of button hole, and while I accept that this does not mean the Larisch had this type of decoration, for the 26th to be famous for it suggests it is at least typical of the Larisch unit if not the army . How else do we explain that at a later date they employed it claiming it to have come from this period and this unit ?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 07:59 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
That is an assumption . It could be called that any time after Larisch took command . There are several examples of various national units maintaining names for hundreds of years .

In various nations - that certainly can be true.
But not with Old-Prussian Regiments, since there the regiments were named after its current commanders.

Ionus wrote:
This is at a time when some units were equipped out of the pocket of the CO . I think I have adequately shown where several units did employ this type of button hole, and while I accept that this does not mean the Larisch had this type of decoration, for the 26th to be famous for it suggests it is at least typical of the Larisch unit if not the army . How else do we explain that at a later date they employed it claiming it to have come from this period and this unit ?

Since at least 1713, the (Old Prussian) regiments weren't equipped out of the pocket of the CO but centrally - from the "Königliches Lagerhaus'.



The (26th Regiment) von Larisch Regiment) was just the patron for the ... 'Larisch style'. Which is historically wrong, because it should be von Kleist style. (See my above post.)

And: this style (and the name for it) was used after 1806, with uniforms of the new formed Prussian army (aka 'New Prussian Army' [from 1814 until 1918]).
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 03:25 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Since at least 1713, the (Old Prussian) regiments weren't equipped out of the pocket of the CO but centrally - from the "Königliches Lagerhaus'.
The same was true in most countries, yet at Balaclava we still have units equipped at the Commanders expense... perhaps I should have added voluntarily...

But staying on topic, do you think the 26th had Larisch/Kleist style button holes ? I accept that they would not have been regulation, but what did the regulation say about the other units that did have them ? It was important for an officer to look fashionable .
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 03:36 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
But staying on topic, do you think the 26th had Larisch/Kleist style button holes ? I accept that they would not have been regulation, but what did the regulation say about the other units that did have them ? It was important for an officer to look fashionable .


I have no idea and only could guess.
The only (original) sources I'm aware of are those quoted above. (According to an email information from Federal Archive - Department Military Archive (MA) there aren't any other known so far.)

There might (and I can imagine: will) have been regulations about those button holes.
But what I do know is that even in 1898 such parts of the uniform could be altered according to the officer's personal gusto ...[(up to a certain (regulated) point/limit, I imagine].
0 Replies
 
troyser
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2011 04:33 am
@panzade,
Yeah & the dumb cunts still cant get it right, i think they've killed more allies with friendly fire than the ******* enemy
0 Replies
 
auzzie
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 06:51 pm
@Setanta,
I read a post the other day that went something along these lines:
Only six men have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ
The British Soldier
The American Soldier
The Canadian Soldier
The Australian Soldier
The New Zealand Soldier
One died for your soul, the others died for your freedom.
It is worth remembering that our soldiers have always fought on the same side and for everyone of them that ever gave his life in battle I feel disappointment and shame at the squabbling on this forum.
Setanta
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 10:48 pm
@auzzie,
auzzie wrote:
It is worth remembering that our soldiers have always fought on the same side and for everyone of them that ever gave his life in battle I feel disappointment and shame at the squabbling on this forum.


For that you can thank the Diggers who have gotten all bent out of shape because no one is buying this Rommel bullshit.
thenzpatriot
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2012 07:16 pm
@proud aussie,
what about kasserine pass buddy that aint downtown new york ,,,,,mind you the jerry kicked their asres just as much as he kicked aussie arse ,,,,
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 07:12 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
For that you can thank the Diggers who have gotten all bent out of shape because no one is buying this Rommel bullshit.
This is from someone who was already bent out of shape and makes more gaffs on history than I thought possible. Read the thread.
0 Replies
 
Rabs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 07:13 pm
@Hatchet,
ACACIA- I know what your taling about with Erwin Rommel quotes, he was actually talking with hitler and hitler said.."ÿou will have no trouble there are only a couple of colonial division's ", Rommel replied "those are not colonial division's, they are Australian's, Give me 2 Australian Division's and ill conquer the world"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 09:11:38