Wormhout Massacre/Battle Related Research Questions

I am gently trying to get the point where I ask him if wants to visit the battlefields. He is 92 and whilst fit and upright most of time, can be quite frail sometimes. He listens to my sister not me - she is staying with him for two or three weeks. I have got her interested and I am hoping she can persuade him.

At the moment, he is wondering why I am asking daft questions about Wormhout but this site has been wonderful for me and I think I am getting to the point where I can interest him. Also trying to dig up some info on battle of Hal, Lys Canal and somewhere near Tournai (he can't remember at the moment). BUT Wormhout has got so much info, it has to be centre.

Just dealing with other points - D Company had been down to the Beaches and had seen first class Regiments going home. So having tasted the prospect of the "Promised Land", I think that they must have been disappointed to knew they were to be sacrificed at Wormhout - they (he says) felt that the best troops were going home first. And having read Blaxland et al, I can now see the clear cold military logic in saving your best but it makes the Cheshires contribution all the more commendable in a way.

Actually I felt very sorry for those Line of Communication troops, no training, hardly any rifles and facing fresh Panzers in full flood - small wonder they crumbled.

I suppose this answers my amazement on the Worcs - leave just enough troops to hold up the enemy for 24hours and sacrifice the Worcs on the next day.

Anyway thanks for all the help - I have got a couple of extra documents to read and then I am going to Flanders to take a look even if my father does not want to or is unable to come along.

Again a side issue - the area seems pretty barren in hotels\guest houses, eating and drinking places. If you or anyone else can make some recommendations, I would be grateful.

 

I can't find much about the set up of Gunnery team for AT such as that of the 53rd Worcs Yeomanry. How many men were in the team, how big was the back-up\logistics, company\troop size (seem to be called a troop and not platoon), how many guns in a Company or troop - Blaxland say there could be up to 16 guns.

 

From here p371:

Anti-Tank Regiment: Headquarters and four batteries, each of twelve 2-pounder anti-tank guns or in some cases of 25-mm. guns. The strength was about 540 and their personal weapons were seventy-seven pistols, 182 rifles, sixty-six light machine guns, thirteen anti-tank rifles.

Nothing yet on the detailed establishment within the battery...

 

Dear All,

Please excuse me to post in this thread dedicated to the heroic resistance of the BEF.
I wanted to say a big "thank you" to everyone and especially to "Drew5233" for these excellent and very interesting 2 threads about the battle and massacre of Wormhout.

I'm french and my grand father, Robert Nolf, "Marechal des Logis" (ie sergeant) in the 1st "Escadron du Train" (8e Cie, 11ème GART) was killed on Tuesday, 28th May 1940 in lieudit Krulle (now Chemin de La Crulle) on the Wormhout to Bergues road, just as it cross the Yser river near The Belle View. He was buried in an anonym grave by the germans and was transfered to the Wormhout cemetery in May 1941 (see the picture below).

We have been searching for years but failed to find any information about the circumstances of his death. So I was astonished to see Krulle mentioned in this thread, I’ve never read anything so close to my grand-father’s fate.

I was wondering if someone on this forum had any information/source about french soldiers involved in the battle of Wormhout ???

Thanks again, and please forgive my poor English.

J-R, Bordeaux, France

 

Bienvenue, J-R. And no need to apologise, especially for such a moving story. I have not seen any specific references to French troops, but Drew (Andy) may know more as he has the French book on the battle/massacre.

As far as the Warwicks are concerned, the first German troops were seen on the northern flank around 0900 28 May 'making for the Dunkirk Road'. The Warwicks called for artillery fire so there is the horrible possibility that your grandfather could have been a victim of either us or the Germans. It is implied that the Dunkirk/Bergues road was cut by the Germans during the day as the Warwicks - what was left of them - finally withdrew north-east to Wylder.

They do refer to refugees coming from Esquelbecq ahead of the Germans, but no mention of French troops amongst them.

(And if you think your English is bad, you haven't heard my French!)

 

Thank you very much Idler. I still have to read all the books mentioned here including the french one by Guy Rommelaere.

My grand-father was in a motorized french unit ("11ème Groupe Automobile Regional de Transport") and was probably moving north toward Bergues & Dunkirk at the moment he has been killed, though we don't know if he was killed in his vehicle (by an air raid or an artillery shoot ?) or not.

When he was found and exhumed from his anonym grave in 1941, the gravedigger said to my family that he had a head injury.

Thanks again,

J-R, Bordeaux, France

 

A fascinating first post J-R and in my opinion entirely appropriate to this thread. I think that many of us with an interest in 1940 are keen to learn more of the French and Belgian involvement but it is not easy without a thorough knowledge of the organisation at the time and of the current archive system. Have you attempted to research through the French military archives ?

Good luck in your quest.

 

The unit involved would seem to have been an equivalent of a British Army Service Corps unit and they are sometimes the most difficult to place exactly. They were inevitably mobile and spread across a wide area.

 

Yes, exactly, it was a service motorized unit from "the Train" (= transportation), integrated in infantry divisions from the 1st french Army to transport troops, material, ammunitions etc.

As far as I know, the 11ème GART has been active from May 14th to June 4th and totally disappeared in the battle for Dunkirk.

Thanks again,

J-R, Bordeaux, France

 

Just had one go at sending this but bombed out - SS LAH strikes again.

Surely the D Coy 4th Cheshire War Diary is very revealing on the subject of when there was first sighting of activity on the La Crulee area - I have typed out this part of Major Kissack's report but please check this out with the original on Croonaert thread on War Diaries.

28th May
About 0700 hours parties of troops were observed from Coy HQ about 1 mile to the North; a few military vehicles were also seen on Esquelbec – La Krenille Road. Major Hicks attention was called to this movement but after observing them with a telescope, he stated that these troops must be part of the Worcesters. In the light of subsequent events it is unfortunate that no further steps were taken to confirm their identity. They disappeared shortly afterwards, presumably having taken cover. About 0900hrs further troop movement was observed to the North, this time about 1000 yards away and certainly German. SAA fire was opened immediately and continued intermittently on this flank throughout the action

I agree with Kissack that it is a shame that this earlier sighting was not checked out but maybe it could have been French troops (?) that were seen. Certainly very unlikely to be Worcesters as they were hardly involved in the battle eg C Coy at HQ and B Coy in South East (who saw little ation).

 

I'm ashamed to say I didn't get as far as checking the Cheshire reports last night.

One snippet I did pick up relates to the earlier comments about the withdrawal of the Worcesters before the battle: there was also a rearward move of the Warwicks. Their C Coy was in Esquelbecq until late 27 May when it was withdrawn north to Bergues. It was their departure that caused B Coy to shuffle north to its position astride the Esquelbecq road.

 

Hello J-R and welcome.

Ref Guy Rommelaere - he was the Mayor of Wormhout or Esquelbecq (I can't remember which off the top of my head). As far as I'm aware he still lives in the area-I would try and contact him for information-I think he has done a lot of local WW2 research.

The only French man I know about in the area in Private Robert Vanpee who was murdered by the SS down the road from the farm and is buried in the Esquelbecq cemetery. I have all the details and pictures about him - I most post his story sometime.


Samuel - Ref taking your father to France (Wormhout)- Let me know if you want some company .

I have some good news for you too - Are you sitting down?

I photographed your fathers battion war diary this week for you. I've not looked at it properly but he is listed on a nominal roll at the Saar front. I assume his first initial is L ?

Regards
Andy

 

Excellent - thanks Andy.

You are right my father was on the Saar - a few hundred yards into Germany near Metzerlen (Spelling?) supporting the Norfolks in la Ligne to Soutien. Nobody told the Germans there that there was a Phony War - they were regularly shelled.

Rommelaere was mayor of Esquelbecq - got the book.

Pleased that I have found out the fate of Pvt Harbour (see earlier post) - in Rommelaere's book. He and another soldier crawled through a hole in the hut only to be seen and shot - Harbour was badly wounded in the arm and leg and left for dead. He was presumably involved in the prisoner exchanged in 1943.

He was an old regular brought in from the reserve. Super bloke according to my father - one of a small bunch of old regulars in D company (all great guys) - but he was overweight and middle-aged and should not really have been on any battlefield, my father's opinion.

Sending you a personal message about my proposed trip to Flanders.

 

At long last I have had the British Army grid system explained to me.

Tried "map translater and Mapquest" out on Daley's position - 288670 in one of Andy's earlier posts and was expecting to arrive at Idlers position ie about 50yards South of Esquelbecq Road. Instead I ended up at 50 yards North ie Lat 50.8852 Lat -2.4552

So something is wrong - probably me, especially as Daley, an A Company Warwicks, should be South of this road (even 50 yards South seems a bit close if the Books are to be believed)

Tried out other positions eg barn, Rose Fort Farm etc and they seemed OK.

 

Some of the grids given in the witness statements were quite a way out (obviously mistakes), one was several miles away in a German area. So remember everything 70 years ago can only be a guide.

ps Didn't get a PM from you.

 

Re-reading the thread I noticed the mention of '3rd Armoured Regiment'. Thinking it might be an overzealous translation of 3 Panzer Regiment, I thought I'd check my history of 2 Pz Div, as 3 Pz Regt was one of theirs. Bingo - except for one tiny little problem

Good luck!

 

I am now virtually convinced of the positions of the Cheshires on the Wormhout Battlefield.

Unfortunately Aitkin got it completely wrong (two platoons, numbers 7 and 9) and to a lesser extent Rommelaere was also wrong.

I have pieced together the Warwick B Company diary, the D and B Company Cheshire diary and Jerram's report (B Company Warwicks) as described in S-M book Dunkirk Fight to the last man.

I believe that S-M is correct when he places the Warwick B Company Platoons in the order Plt 12 North, Plt 11 (Lt Dunwell) West and Plt 10 (2nd Lt Gunnell).

My Father has been adamant that 15 Plt Cheshire were lined up parallel to a straight road, 200 yards back near Pollarded trees (see my earlier posts). There was an AT gun on the right and an open flank on the left and the Germans came down the road from the right. The 15Pln were not allowed to fire left for fear of hitting their own troops. All this fits with being 200 yards North of the Esquelbecq Road. Therefore their fire would be mostly South.

8 Pln Cheshires had a clear fire due West (as did 13Pln on the left - see D Company diary). Kissack says that (looking West) he put 8Pln on th right. It is clear that 8 Pln faced the worst of the action. Dunwell's 11 Pln Warwicks seemed to have had an equally hard time (eg Cpl Handyside). Without dwelling on it too much, it could be that Cheshire 8Pln and Warwicks 11 Pln were in the same area, North West. 12 Pln Warwicks seemed to have seen relatively light attacks.

So this would seem to fit - it is worth noting that B Company Warwicks would receive two Plns ie 8 and 15 Platoon Cheshire and I wonder if this is where the original mistake of Aiken is made.

It is clear that there were four Platoons of Cheshire's in total at Wormhout. 13 Pln was South West in Warwicks A and D Company area and saw little action until the middle of the afternoon but were then overwhelmed quickly.

14 Pln Cheshires, according to Kissack, were placed with HQ but maybe in more than one location slightly East (300yards) of Wormhout centre and firing in a North West direction. Maybe at more than one location as he describes one section being blown out of its position in an old bomb crater.

Just one more word about 8Pln (according to D Company Diary) - or 7 Pln (according to B Company Diary). Both Diaries agree that the Platoon was commanded by Lt Clemence. I am trying to find out which Platoon, Clemence normally commanded but I have been able to confirm that Capt Sir John Nicholson (seems to have taken HQ control of this Pln) was in fact from C Company Cheshires, so it looks likely that this Pln was a scraping of several remnants.

Anyway I would like to invite specific criticisms of my theory.

PS have typed out Warwicks B Company War Diary if anyone wants to read it (frankly I find it easier to understand the action once the text is clear).

I am also trying to have Idler's posting about 3Pz translated as I have a suspicion it confirms a bit more of my father's recollection (and Kissack's).

Lastly, I am trying to understand L Cpl Oxley's report which was made at the behest of Major Kissack (why? - did the Major suspect a War Crime had been committed?)

 

11th December 1993 Daily Mail published this photo of the criminals together

 

Samuel, it would be good if you could post the B Coy 2 Warwicks diary as it (or Jerram) differs from the history which has B Coy platoons reversed: Gunnell's pl north of the road, Dunwells' astride the road and the other one to the south.

If that is the case, the Cheshires would have had 8 Pl with Gunnell 'well' north of the road, where they ought to have been able to fire on the Esquelbecq-La Krulle road as described.

Your father's 15 Pl in the centre should have been in or near Dunwell's locality. Dunwell's casualties could be explained by them being hit by the German attack that formed up in front of 15 Pl - did 15 Pl withdraw through Dunwell's pl?

Is it also possible that only your father's section were firing south or south west across the front, with the other section of 15 Pl deployed facing west (as suggested by the war diary)?

On the other hand, there is the worrying possibility that the Cheshires' positions relate to the Warwick's original positions on 27 May, remembering that B Coy spread itself north that night. The Cheshires reach Wormhout c1530 27 May, in position by 1900. C Coy 2 Warwicks withdraw from Esquelbecq 2100, so the B Coy move is after the Cheshires' deployment. Daley's(?) grid ref and the pollards say no; but the diary's
Coy HQ with Bn HQ 2nd Warwicks, 3/400 yards behind No 9 Pln on right front.
could mean that 8 Pl (9 is a typo?) on the right was on the Esquelbecq Road with the HQs at the junction?

I need to think that one through with a clearer head tomorrow...

Good luck with the translation. I'm afraid I'm not clever enough, as the purchase of a book I can't read demonstrates!

Andrew

 

Thanks Idler - that is just what I wanted. WIll have a good think about your questions.