Mixing
Was Col. John K. Waters (Gen. Patton's son-in-law) wounded in the buttocks or the stomach during Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
Background:
I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:
- Wiki Article on Task Force Baum
- War History
Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
Rescue His Son-in-Law Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-LawDon Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
son-in-law
Summary:
In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.
Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)
Question:
Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.
Spoiler (for the curious):
Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.
world-war-two
asked Aug 29 at 11:41
Kerry L
32013
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
Background:
I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:
- Wiki Article on Task Force Baum
- War History
Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
Rescue His Son-in-Law Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-LawDon Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
son-in-law
Summary:
In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.
Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)
Question:
Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.
Spoiler (for the curious):
Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.
world-war-two
asked Aug 29 at 11:41
Kerry L
32013
add a comment |Â
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
Background:
I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:
- Wiki Article on Task Force Baum
- War History
Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
Rescue His Son-in-Law Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-LawDon Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
son-in-law
Summary:
In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.
Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)
Question:
Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.
Spoiler (for the curious):
Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.
world-war-two
asked Aug 29 at 11:41
Kerry L
32013
Background:
I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:
- Wiki Article on Task Force Baum
- War History
Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
Rescue His Son-in-Law Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-LawDon Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
son-in-law
Summary:
In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.
Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)
Question:
Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.
Spoiler (for the curious):
Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.
world-war-two
asked Aug 29 at 11:41
Kerry L
32013
edited Aug 30 at 0:01
asked Aug 29 at 11:41
Kerry L
32013
asked Aug 29 at 11:41
Kerry L
32013
asked Aug 29 at 11:41
Kerry L
32013
32013
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
20
down vote
accepted
In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:
Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.
Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters
in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
left hip...
The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
3
Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.
– Kerry L
Aug 29 at 13:42
3
@KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.
– Michael Karas
Aug 30 at 1:55
1
@MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.
– Kerry L
Aug 30 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
20
down vote
accepted
In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:
Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.
Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters
in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
left hip...
The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
3
Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.
– Kerry L
Aug 29 at 13:42
3
@KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.
– Michael Karas
Aug 30 at 1:55
1
@MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.
– Kerry L
Aug 30 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
accepted
In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:
Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.
Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters
in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
left hip...
The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
3
Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.
– Kerry L
Aug 29 at 13:42
3
@KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.
– Michael Karas
Aug 30 at 1:55
1
@MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.
– Kerry L
Aug 30 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
accepted
up vote
20
down vote
accepted
In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:
Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.
Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters
in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
left hip...
The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:
Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.
Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters
in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
left hip...
The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
edited 4 hours ago
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
answered Aug 29 at 12:31
Lars Bosteen
28.1k7144190
28.1k7144190
3
Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.
– Kerry L
Aug 29 at 13:42
3
@KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.
– Michael Karas
Aug 30 at 1:55
1
@MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.
– Kerry L
Aug 30 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
3
Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.
– Kerry L
Aug 29 at 13:42
3
@KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.
– Michael Karas
Aug 30 at 1:55
1
@MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.
– Kerry L
Aug 30 at 15:50
3
3
Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.
– Kerry L
Aug 29 at 13:42
Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.
– Kerry L
Aug 29 at 13:42
3
3
@KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.
– Michael Karas
Aug 30 at 1:55
@KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.
– Michael Karas
Aug 30 at 1:55
1
1
@MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.
– Kerry L
Aug 30 at 15:50
@MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.
– Kerry L
Aug 30 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47847%2fwas-col-john-k-waters-gen-pattons-son-in-law-wounded-in-the-buttocks-or-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password