Michael Wittman's Demise - did we find the answer?

[Michael Dorosh]

Sorry to bring this up again, a search* hasn't yielded me any real results.

I know this was discussed before, and someone provided a good source, including the name of the gunner, that indicated a British Firefly was repsonsible for the kill of Wittman - not a Typhoon.

Can someone please tell me what that source was, or where I can go to find out this info? The subject has come up on another board.

Thanks in advance.

.
.
.
.(*)of the first three threads in the General Forum

[Agua]

Is this the post that contained the info you're looking for?: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=001443

[Michael Dorosh]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Agua:
Is this the post that contained the info you're looking for?: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=001443[/Q UOTE]

What the hell do you do, map these out on an Excel spreadsheet? :D

That looks like it; many thanks!

[Michael Dorosh]

Whoops, spoke too soon. The thread I was thinking of actually named the Brit gunner - IIRC, anyway! I'll try a google search. I think Soldier's Story by Whitaker discusses it, but he dilutes the argument by making a claim for a Canadian gunner simultaneously.

[Panzer Leader]

Achtung Panzer (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm) says it was destroyed by fire from tanks of "A" Squadron of Northamptonshire Yeomanry -- a Firefly.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:
Achtung Panzer (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm) says it was destroyed by fire from tanks of "A" Squadron of Northamptonshire Yeomanry -- a Firefly.From 800m and a side shot IIRC

[Michael Dorosh]

That's a start, thanks Wacky. I sent my last turn - your email still acting up?

[Stuka]

I thought Wittman escaped to Argentina and spent his last years farming Hamsters.

[Flipper]

wittman never died that is the great myth....actually he was severly wounded where thence he was sent back to germany to convalesce
ended the war and lived in west germany after that
if he is still alive these days I dont know?...I don't read the celeberity war heros orbituaries much these days.....SHUFTI CUSH girls redface.gif

[offtaskagain]

Joe Eskins i think was the Firefly gunners name.

[Andreas]

Wasn't it 'Ekins'? 2nd Northants Yeo, Ken Tout's regiment.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:
Wasn't it 'Ekins'? 2nd Northants Yeo, Ken Tout's regiment.1st Northants Yeomanry. At St-Aignan-le-Cramesnil, at around midday on 8th August 1944. The gunner was indeed trooper Joe Ekins; his tank commander, Sgt. Gordon, was disoriented by being hit on the head by a falling hatch, and later wounded by MG fire.

The other claim to bagging Wittman for which I have seen any evidence presented is to RAF Typhoons, a claim mentioned briefly and attributed to "Panzermeyer" in Mike Reynolds' "Steel Inferno".

Gary Simpson's "Tiger Ace", a biography of Wittman, says he fell to 1NY, as do Ken Tout's books, of which the relevant one is I think "A Fine Night for Tanks".

I have never yet seen any supporting evidence offered by those who claim Wittman was bagged by the Canadians, and so assume that this is an error attributable to the fact that 1NY were at the time operating in a Canadian sector.

2nd Northants Yeomanry served as an armoured recce regiment in Cromwells before they were broken up to provide replascements for 1NY; something of their story is told in "Sixty-Four Days of a Normandy Summer" by Keith Jones.

All the best,

John.

[Andreas]

Thanks John, I always mix them up. Both are fine books by the way. I was fortunate that Warwick University library stocked quite a bit on that (beats reading for the PhD anyday).

Are you up for drinks?

[P51D]

Wittman was not killed by tank fire by either the
canucks or the yeomanry. He was killed by Tyffies.
His body was discovered in the early 90's during
the research for the After the Battle series of books entitled Panzers in Normandy Then & Now. I have all data at home somewhere. His grave is in Normandy. Have visited. Photos are available of his Tiger with the turret heavily damaged & the engine deck destroyed from a large penetration
of the compartment. Definetly not an AP hit. It was all meticulously researched & his dental records matched.

All material published since the discovery & publication has acknowledged this. Ken's books were written some time ago.

Ed

[Andreas]

Mike, I think that settles your question. No, we have not resolved the issue. :D

[P51D]

I am, by profession, a military historian with my own company & we (25-30 strong doctorate & professorship faculty) lecture on WW2 topics all over Europe & the US to Military Colleges, Academies, think tanks, government agencies etc.

The death of Wittman has been resolved in our circles, because of the level of research undertaken during & since the discovery of his body. Expert analysis of the photographs has shown the location of the rocket strike & further concluded that wittman & his crew were incinerated due to the engine fire exploding into the crew compartment through the firewall. Indeed Wittmans skeletal remains showed the lower body (legs, lower abdomen) fused by the intense heat whilst his upper body & head were (skeletally) unscathed.

It was concluded that the rocket impact exploded the fuel tanks instantly causing a massive influx of heat through the destroyed firewall into the crew compartment.

I completed a paper on his death a few years ago that was reviewed & commended at a conference in Stockholm.

Regards

Ed

[PawBroon]

What does it have to do with him getting killed by Typhus?
That's Gamey surely...

[Andreas]

Ed, no offense intended. Is your paper available online?

I see you are in the UK. If you feel like arguing this one over a drink, come to The George in London 1830 this Friday.

[P51D]

Andreas.

No offence taken at all. Just thought i would post seeing as it is one of my 'subjects' & i could see the usual mistakes being made regarding
wittman. No fault of the writers. Just confusion due to the conflicting evidence around prior to the discovery of his remains. It is a pity that
nothing much has been publishes since the discovery especially since the 50th anniversary of the landings. I will check my dates when i
am home to see when the book was published, discovered etc.

No my paper is not online. It was a few years ago & anyway wasn't intended for publication in the general public domain although i believe After the Battle magazine summarised it in an article some months later.

Regards

Ed

[Michael Dorosh]

I'll look forward to reading that, Ed. Any chance of getting a scan of the After the Battle article?

[mccooper]

Hello

While the answer has already been taken care of there are some excellent discussions on the topic of Wittmann's demise on Missing Lynx for anyone who is interested.

Here are just 2 examples

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=47207&messageid=961111650

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=47207&messageid=1004973972

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by P51D:
Wittman was not killed by tank fire by either the canucks or the yeomanry. He was killed by Tyffies.
His body was discovered in the early 90's during
the research for the After the Battle series of books entitled Panzers in Normandy Then & Now.
[Snips]
All material published since the discovery & publication has acknowledged this. Ken's books were written some time ago.
EdAmazon gives the publication date of Lefevre's "Panzers in Normandy then & now" as June 1983.

Simpson's "Tiger Ace" was first published in 1994.

Reynolds' "Steel Inferno" was first publushed in 1997.

I can't find my copy of "A fine night for tanks" right ast the moment, but Ken Tout's preceding book, "Tanks, Advance!", bears a first publication date of 1987.

I'd be interested in a precise reference to your paper.

All the best,

John.

[P51D]

thanks for the refs on the Then & Now publication john. Saves me some work later. I have an updated version of the book that i purchased in 97/98 although whether the update included the discovery of Wittman i don't know. I am suprised at the dates of Ken's works. I thought they were earlier as it seems years ago when i read them.

With regard to the publication of incorrect info after the discovery i can only attribute this to lack of research & complying with the skectchy info available prior to the discovery of the remains. I am at a loss to analyse why these theories of the canucks or the yeomanry persisted after the discovery & subsequent invetsigation.
After all the find was well known and discussed feverently in the military history cicles.

As i said previously in the professional historical 'family' the question of his death are solved & not worthy of debate. The photographic evidence alone is irrefutable with regard to a rocket strike & during the investigation the flight logs were discovered belonging to the Tyffie squadron who conducted the attack. Again my memory is hazy on exact details due to the time since i was last researching Wittman data.
The flight logs indicated an attack on Tigers in the open & the location is exactly that of the discovery of the bodies. There were 3 bodies discovered in a shallow grave by the side of a road.

As i said my paper was not published was not in the public domain but was presented at a forum in Sweden some years ago attended by military personnel & historians.

I do not know if After the Battle mag is still available & i never saw the article. I remmeber being informed of the summation but never got to see it.

Regards

Ed

[Kingfish]

Last night I held a séance at my house and the spirit of Michael Wittman was called on. He appeared as a soft blue glow hovering over the dining room table. Over the course of the evening he floated around the room answering questions, stopping only briefly to snag a beer from the fridge.

He talked at great length about the Stug and Tiger, German tactics in general and his exploits at Villers-Bocage (talk about an AAR!). Finally, the question was raised about how he died on 8/8/44. For a while there was silence, then he took a long pull of beer, placed the empty bottle on the table and said ‘That &$%#@! Englishman in the orchard, Damn him to Hell!” followed by another long period of silence. We decided not to pursue it any further, and that’s where the matter ended.

He stuck around for a little while longer, and I even managed to persuade him to a hotseat game of, you guessed it, Villers-Bocage. He had a blast, yelling in German whenever his Tiger would score a kill (needless to say I was getting my ass handed to me. After all, he knows this scenario like that back of his hand). His only complaint was the need to plot all those waypoints just to move vehicles down the roads. I told him that a follow command is the most asked for feature of the game, and suggested that a nocturnal visit to Charles might help convince him to add it into CMBB. He said he’d check to see if he could fit it into his schedule.

Finally, he had to return to where old soldiers go when they pass on. Just before he left he gave me his e-mail address, and said he would send me a setup once his copy of CMBB shows up. Then, he snagged one last beer from the fridge, said farewell to all of us and with a bright flash of light he disappeared into the ceiling.

We plan on calling other souls in the weeks to come. I’ll post a schedule whenever I get around to it, but can tell you that Monty, Bradley and Guderian are on the list. We’ll even try to get Patton and Zhukov in the same room together. That ought to be fun.

[Michael Dorosh]

So Ed, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you aretelling us that the "mystery" of Wittman's death has been solved for well and for good, but you know of no actual published sources that confirm any of what you are saying, though you are reasonably certain that some photos you saw "somewhere" are proof positive of the claims, along with the flight logs (that indicate what, exactly) as well as an unpublished paper of your own creation?

Surely if this were discussed widely in the military historical community you can point us to some small part of this discussion, no?

[P51D]

No mystery exists.

The published account is, as i said, contained within the After the Battle publication Panzers in Normandy. If the book was originally published in 1983 as john says then at the time the related magazine series of the same name contains a nore detailed breakdown of the research. This i know because i used the magazine as an intial point of reference for the Tiger in Normandy that formed the main part of my paper. I was looking at back copies of the magazine in late 97 or 98. It was after i read the book that i became aware of Wittmans discovery. This lead me to more copies of the mag pertaining to the discovery. I do not know the dates of the mags as it was 5 years ago as i said. I have been involved in much more in depth research on other topics since then so u will excuse me if my memory regarding issue numbers is non-existent.

The book also contains the photos illustrating the damage to 007 & shows the photo of wittmans grave. As i said previously i do not know if the discovery of his remains was only included in the updated late 90's version of the book or was in the 1983 version. If it was 83 then AtB mag of that time contains more in depth info. If it was sometime mind 90's then correspondingly AtB contains same.

My paper was not unpublished. It was published in the journals that we use everyday to keep in touch with research projects around the world in much the same way that medical journals are produced to inform those in the medical profession of health related news. Much of which is of little or no relevance or importance to the
general public. It is not my fault that most of these type of journals are not available to the general public especially as it was 5 years ago.

To historians they are the lifeblood of our profession. We need them to keep in touch with
what is happening on the other side of the world in our profession. They are where important findings or theories are published.

It should be noted that most of the publications listed of a first person narrative nature are in escence, non-fiction novels & as such are not subject to stringent research required by the profession. In short anyone can print/publish what they want & it be taken as the truth. The confusion about Wittman stems all the way back to 1944 & the announcement by SS HQ that he had been KIA.

I originally responded to the request regarding Wittman because of the incorrect facts highlighted by authors that i knew to be wrong. I knew they were wrong because as professionals we know they are wrong. That is why my company is in existence. We cannot deal with facts that are incorrect because we would be unemployed. It is also why we are employed by academic bodies, government depts, institutes etc to give lectures & reports etc on WW2.

Ed

[Måkjager]

I have a difficulty in accepting the theory that Typhoons knocked out Wittmans Tiger due to the one photo of the ko Tiger 007 that Wittman was in command of that day.
To the best of my knowledge Typhoons carried 60lb rockets which they used to fire on enemy ground forces.These i think would have been fired in a volley to best maximise the chance of success against a target.

Looking at the same photo of the ko Tiger that has been published in Panzers in Normandy - Then and Now , Tigers in Combat 2 , Michael Wittman and the Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte and any other publication with the same photo i fail to see any evidence of impact craters from the other rockets which must have fallen near the Tiger. I may be wrong as the angle of the shot is not expansive enough to allow us to see these other craters but i do doubt that it was a rocket firing Typhoon that caused the damage to the Tiger.

Furthermore we are told that the Tigers in the force began to take fire from the right flank. It would have been common sense and standard military practice for the Tigers to turn and also to rotate their turrets to try engage the enemy...presenting their thickest armour to the threat
If this is what happened then the turret side with the escape hatch would have begun to move towards the right...beginning to align it with the rear deck / engine compartment that is allegedly have been the hit point of the rocket.

If you look at that side of the turret in the picture you will see that there is no evidence of blast damage to either the hatch , zimmerit or rear turret stowage box.

If you take the scenario that the Typhoon fired and hit the rear deck while the turret was facing near the 12 o'clock position..then how come the rear stowage box is still intact with the turret? With no sign of extensive blast damage?

I have no experience of explosives..but i do know that 60lb of HE is 60lb of hurt..and that a "flimsy" stowage box would have been ripped asunder from the blast.

For me Joe Ekins did his job that day.

Regards

Måkjager

[Viceroy]

Michael,

Tout in "A Fine Night for Tanks" 1998, is sure that Joe Eskin's Firefly got Wittmann and a few other Tigers in that engagement. He says no ground support aircraft were flying until later in the day. Tout also says there were some 34 Fireflies, "...within range of Wittmann's route..."

Reynolds in "Steel Inferno" 1997, explains how "A" Squadron of the 1st Northants Yeomanry had generally been credited with the kill. He then says, that "recently" Hubert Meyer in the magazine Der Freiwillige claimed that a Typhoon had got Wittmann. Reynolds concludes that, "...the only thing that therefore which can be said with any certainty is that Wittmann did not survive the 8th of August...."

Reynolds writes that Wittmann's remains were found in March '83 and matched with his dental records. An ID disc of his driver H.Reimers was found in the "intermingled remains. Tout and Kurowski say the same thing.

Kurowski in the 1992 "Panzer Aces" claims that the Shermans got Wittmann. In the 2000 edition there is an editors note which says that some now claim a Typhoon got the hit on tank 007.

Kurt Meyer in "Grenadiers" who was in the vicinity at the time says that at shortly before 1100hrs near Hill 190 allied planes attacked a combat team of the Algonquin Regiment under Lt-Col Worthington. So it would seem some allied planes were active on the morning of the 8th.

[ May 28, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Viceroy ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by P51D:
No mystery exists.Au contraire, the plot thickens!

Originally posted by P51D:
It was after i read the book that i became aware of Wittmans discovery. This lead me to more copies of the mag pertaining to the discovery. I do not know the dates of the mags as it was 5 years ago as i said. I have been involved in much more in depth research on other topics since then so u will excuse me if my memory regarding issue numbers is non-existent.I think it was General Kutusov who said "The worst pencil is better than the best memory", but I'm not sure, because I didn't write it down.

Originally posted by P51D:

The book also contains the photos illustrating the damage to 007 & shows the photo of wittmans grave.
The only photo I have seen of 007 certainly does not support the conclusions you seem to have drawn from it. How many such photos are there?

Originally posted by P51D:
[Snips]
It is not my fault that most of these type of journals are not available to the general public especially as it was 5 years ago.
No, but it very definitely is your fault if you refuse to provide a clear reference to it. Now, for the third time of asking, will you please give a reference to your paper? Journal title and issue number and author's name will be sufficient. In the absence of such a reference, suspicious-minded people may begin to suspect that you are not what you claim you are.

Originally posted by P51D:

I originally responded to the request regarding Wittman because of the incorrect facts highlighted by authors that i knew to be wrong. I knew they were wrong because as professionals we know they are wrong.
This sounds very like an argument from authority. If you are really an academic historian, you will know how much such arguments are worth. I'm also somewhat surprised that you don't think Ken Tout or Mike Reynolds are part of the military history community. The British Army seems to think that they are.

Oh, and just in case it's not mentioned in the paper of yours that you are about to post a reference to, could you tell us which Typhoon squadron it was whose operations book showed the attack on Wittman's Tiger? A PRO piece number would be ideal, but it shouldn't be hard to finmd with just the squadron number.

All the best,

John.

[Gpig]

I gotta tell yah. I LOVE this forum. smile.gif

THis is like watching a great courtroom drama. Each side armed with a dizzying array of facts and knowledge.

One side started out with apparent authority on the matter, but has since slipped into and under a fogbank of suspicion due to some sharp investigative reasoning. Hee hee hee. Fun fun fun.

Gotta say . . . I'm rooting for Eskins. (As I agree with the photo evidence argument pointed out by MJgr, above.)

Of course, I don't know a THING about what happened to Wittman. smile.gif

Gpig

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Gpig:

[Snips]
THis is like watching a great courtroom drama. Each side armed with a dizzying array of facts and knowledge.

[Snips]

Gotta say . . . I'm rooting for Eskins.
{John D. Fiddlespoon, of Fiddlespoon, Grognard & Claptrap (solicitors and commisioners for oaths) rises, and interjects:}

On a point of information, that's "Ekins", M'lud.

{Lord Justice Cocklecarrot (for it is he) peers over half-moon glasses and mutters:}

I'm grateful to counsel. Proceed.

:D

All the best,

John.

[zukkov]

hey kingfish, i think ole wittman was just yankin' your chain for the free beers. and let me know when you get zhukov in there with patton. i'll buy a front row ticket for that matchup!

[Joe Shaw]

Now, for the third time of asking, will you please give a reference to your paper? Journal title and issue number and author's name will be sufficient. In the absence of such a reference,
suspicious-minded people may begin to suspect that you are not what you claim you are.Salt, Salt, Salt, lack of faith is a terrible thing. You have such a suspicious mind.

I am nowhere near as suspicious as you Salt, I think you should be ashamed of yourself ... of course any historian worth his ... ahem ... salt ... keeps pretty good records and has his sources to hand since historians are such nasty creatures and need chapter and verse on everything. And most historians that I know have everything they've ever published memorized so as to WoW! the lads at the club.

Hmmmm, on the other hand perhaps if P-51D could provide us with, oh I don't know, perhaps an email address ... or an occupation or a location ... or perhaps even the name of the company he refers to. It's awfully easy to drop into a BBS and claim anything at all, not that I think that of P-51D of course, but SOME suspicious minds might. Thank Gawd I'm not that sort.

Joe

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by P51D:
No mystery exists.

The published account is, as i said, contained within the After the Battle publication Panzers in Normandy. If the book was originally published in 1983 as john says then at the time the related magazine series of the same name contains a nore detailed breakdown of the research. This i know because i used the magazine as an intial point of reference for the Tiger in Normandy that formed the main part of my paper. I was looking at back copies of the magazine in late 97 or 98. It was after i read the book that i became aware of Wittmans discovery. This lead me to more copies of the mag pertaining to the discovery. I do not know the dates of the mags as it was 5 years ago as i said. I have been involved in much more in depth research on other topics since then so u will excuse me if my memory regarding issue numbers is non-existent.

The book also contains the photos illustrating the damage to 007 & shows the photo of wittmans grave. As i said previously i do not know if the discovery of his remains was only included in the updated late 90's version of the book or was in the 1983 version. If it was 83 then AtB mag of that time contains more in depth info. If it was sometime mind 90's then correspondingly AtB contains same.

My paper was not unpublished. It was published in the journals that we use everyday to keep in touch with research projects around the world in much the same way that medical journals are produced to inform those in the medical profession of health related news. Much of which is of little or no relevance or importance to the
general public. It is not my fault that most of these type of journals are not available to the general public especially as it was 5 years ago.

To historians they are the lifeblood of our profession. We need them to keep in touch with
what is happening on the other side of the world in our profession. They are where important findings or theories are published.

It should be noted that most of the publications listed of a first person narrative nature are in escence, non-fiction novels & as such are not subject to stringent research required by the profession. In short anyone can print/publish what they want & it be taken as the truth. The confusion about Wittman stems all the way back to 1944 & the announcement by SS HQ that he had been KIA.

I originally responded to the request regarding Wittman because of the incorrect facts highlighted by authors that i knew to be wrong. I knew they were wrong because as professionals we know they are wrong. That is why my company is in existence. We cannot deal with facts that are incorrect because we would be unemployed. It is also why we are employed by academic bodies, government depts, institutes etc to give lectures & reports etc on WW2.

EdDo these journals have titles? I am sure I will have access to them at the local University, which has a very good military history department.

I'm twice published myself, with a BA in History. That means nothing on its own, but I should like to think that that experience would at least qualify me to read one of these journals. Or at least look at some of the smaller words.

[ May 28, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[aka_tom_w]

My very brief web search turn up this reference.

any of these books here help at all?

http://thunder.sonic.net/%7ebstone/blitzbooks/reich.html

-tom w

[Colin]

I wanna see what this guy comes up with.

[Kilgore]

From a quick search of the internet I found this;

Mr.Varin examined Wittmann's Tiger and noticed that it was not penetrated by any shells fired at it during the fighting. The only damage to the hull was a big hole in the rear, near the engine deck. further examination Mr.Varin concluded that the impact came from the air. The rocket hit Tiger's rear deck (made of 25mm thick armor), penetrated the air intakes and exploded causing the explosion in the engine compartment and fighting compartment which ignited the stored ammunitionFrom;
http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/wittman.html

Unfortunately, the site doesn’t provide any references, so we're back to square one :(

Måkjager, are these the pictures you're referring to?

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/witt_tur.jpg

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/wittig.jpg

[aka_tom_w]

good picture of the fellow here:

http://www.sonnet.com/usr/aaron/witt.html

not much news on his death though.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

From this page:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm

After further examination Mr.Varin concluded that the impact came from the air. The rocket hit Tiger's rear deck (made of
25mm thick armor), penetrated the air intakes and exploded causing the explosion in the engine compartment and fighting
compartment which ignited the stored ammunition. The second explosion instantly killed the entire crew and blew off the
turret into the air. According to Varin, Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by a rocket fired from a Royal Air Force Hawker
"Typhoon" MkIB - attack aircraft. Typhoons were armed with HE (High-explosive) rockets and took heavy tow of German
tanks during the Normandy battles (for example on August 8th of 1944, Typhoons destroyed 135 German tanks and among
those Tiger #007).

Finally, it was proven that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by fire from tanks of "A" Squadron of Northamptonshire
Yeomanry. British Firefly crew observed advancing Tigers and opened fire at when Tigers were some 800m away.
According to original War Diary of "A" Squadron, at 12:20, 3 Tigers were moving towards the Squadron and were
destroyed at 12:40, 12:47 and 12:52 without any losses. After the first Tiger was destroyed at 12:40, second one returned fire
but was hit and blew up in a loud explosion. Following that, third Tiger was knocked out after receiving two hits. Wittmann's
Tiger was destroyed as second at 12:47 by British Sherman VC "Firefly", armed with 17 pounder gun capable of penetrating
Tiger's armor at range of 800m. The force of explosion blew off the turret, which landed upside down away from the hull.
Wittmann did not know that British had Firefly in the area and felt confident in attacking their position with his Tigers,
otherwise he would take different approach to the whole attack. After Wittmann failed to return from the battle, search for
him by the members of the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" and his battalion took place during the day and on the
night of 8/9th.

Michael Wittmann and his crew was killed in action on August 8th of 1944, at Gaumesnil near Cintheaux and were buried in
an unmarked grave. In March of 1983, the unmarked field grave of Tiger #007's crew was discovered during the
construction of the road and was excavated. It was possible to identify the remains by Wittmann's dental records and
Heinrich Reimers's (driver) identification tag. Wittmann and his crew was then officially buried in the German Military
Cemetery of "De La Cambe" in Normandy, France. The cemetery is located on the National Road 13 (RN 13) between
Isigny-sur-Mer and Bayeux. Michael Wittmann is buried in square 47, row 3, grave 120 of "De La Cambe". On August 8th
of 1944, crew of Tiger #007 from 2nd Kompanie of schwere SS-Panzer Abteilungen 101 of LSSAH was as follows:

SS-Sturmmann Rudolf "Rudi" Hirschel (radioman) 24/1/3 - 44/8/8 (20 years old),
SS-Unterscharführer Henrich Reimers (driver) 24/5/11 - 44/8/8 (20 years old),
SS-Unterscharführer Karl Wagner (observer) 20/5/31 - 44/8/8 (24 years old),
SS-Sturmmann Günther Weber (loader) 24/12/21 - 44/8/8 (20 years old),
SS-Haupsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann (commander) 14/4/22 - 44/8/8 (30 years old).

He ended up his career as a Commander of 2.Kompanie schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101 (part of 1st SS Panzer Division
"LSSAH").SS-Haupsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann was the most successful tanker ace of World War II. His friends said that
Michael Wittmann was quiet man even during combat and that he had 6th sense, to know where and how to engage the
enemy. Wittmann commanded excellent crews, who were able to fully cooperate withhim and anticipated his orders.

Wittmann was highly admired by his comrades and very highly thought of by his superiors. Michael Wittmann represents a
real hero who fought to the bitter end for his Fatherland. Wittmann's personal bravery is unquestionable and his place in the
annals of military history thoroughly deserved.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John D Salt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gpig:

[Snips]
THis is like watching a great courtroom drama. Each side armed with a dizzying array of facts and knowledge.

[Snips]

Gotta say . . . I'm rooting for Eskins.
{John D. Fiddlespoon, of Fiddlespoon, Grognard & Claptrap (solicitors and commisioners for oaths) rises, and interjects:}

On a point of information, that's "Ekins", M'lud.

{Lord Justice Cocklecarrot (for it is he) peers over half-moon glasses and mutters:}

I'm grateful to counsel. Proceed.

:D

All the best,

John.</font>[/QUOTE]Someone's been reading Private Eye, methinks.

[The DesertFox]

Ah, one of my all time favorite topics *GGG*. Kilgore thanks for linking to the pics.[originally it was one pic, but here it is split in two halves]

I apologize, I wasn´t able to resist to reply to the bait. As you can imagine I collected some notes while doing my homework for Cintheaux-Totalize...here is some stuff you might be interested in.....lengthy post following.

P51D,

P51D wrote: He was killed by Tyffies

Well, considering your mentioned background you obviously know more than we know. Mind to give us specifics? Since you are such a well knowing lad, mind me to ask Where is that documented? Author, ISBN, etc. ?

P51D wrote: His body was discovered in the early 90's during the research for the After the Battle series of books entitled Panzers in Normandy Then & Now.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Serge Varin made contact with a few 12SS veterans in the last few decades before the remains were discovered, in particular with former Obersturmführer Hubert Meyer; photos and accounts were exchanged and Serge produced his photo of 007, for possible identification. This shot was later published in the 12SS Veteran Association Magazine in the late 70's and some time later, both vets from the 12SS and the SS101 Bttn. in particular were able to ascertain that indeed this photo of 007 showed Wittmann's mount when he was killed on Aug.8 1944, in the vicinity of Cintheaux and St-Aignan de Cramesnil near Gaumesnil !!
Contact was then made with The German War Grave Commission and it was decided to search the location and the bodies were finally unearthed in late March 1983 under German and local authorities supervision.
So stories of 'road construction' and 'farmer's ploughing' must be considered as pure FANTASY and ignored as such ! It is true that Jean-Paul Pallud did performed additional research and was involved in the discovery of the remains of Wittmann and his crew who were buried in a communal grave shortly after the fighting, in the immediate proximity of where 007 once stood [on the field of Mr. Paul Samson]. Not to diminish Pallud's dedicated work and efforts, it is a sad and recurrent fact that he and other authors on the subject always seem to 'omit' to give credit where credit is due...in this case to Mr. Serge Varin.

P51D wrote: I have all data at home somewhere.

Then I assume it should be no problem for you to give us some more "specific" data ? At least give us Author, magazine, etc. please....we all would love to learn something new which is factually evidenced.

P51D wrote: Photos are available of his Tiger with the turret heavily damaged

Nope! Au contraire! At least to my knowledge. No photos---ONE SINGLE PHOTO!----The turret of 007 isn´t heavily damaged. Please have a look at the photo on page 183 of "panzer in Normandy". The man who took the photo of the deturreted 007 is Monsieur Serge Varin. He photographed this Tiger in March 1945 totally by chance, while he was visiting the area with a friend; both were riding their bicycles and had stopped by the field where 007 was located for a pause. According to him, at the time you could not see the wreck as a tall hedgerow was hiding it from the road and, had they not stopped by, chances are they might have never spotted it.
So as Serge walked past the hedgerow and into the field, he then saw the wreckage and his curiosity was arroused by the fact that the turret was lying several meters behind.

He only took one shot of it, obviously completely unaware of what and whose Tiger it was at the time !(Oddly enough, this shot has been split in 2 frames in some publications, but they are really part of one and the same photo).

P51D wrote: & the engine deck destroyed from a large penetration
of the compartment.

Again au contraire! The photo doesn´t show such evidence. Please have a look at the photo page 183 of "panzer in Normandy" or Agte page 288 german edition or Schneider TIC-II page 290. 007 is showing a very intact rear end. If we assume that you drop what is in effect a 5 inch shell into the engine compartment, why didn't the tank even loose the command antenna container ? And of course, why is the "Rommel Kiste" of the turret still perfectly intact ?

P51D wrote: Definetly not an AP hit. It was all meticulously researched [...]

We are happy that you certainly are able to show us evidence or cite puplished sources that are able to support your assumptions. To get you start thinking...The damage...Only to expand on this line of thinking....if a 60lb ? High Explosive warhead of a 'Typhoon' rocket has indeed struck the engine deck of "007" leaving 'a large hole spreading all the way to the turret pit' as it is mentioned by some people, it would thus indicate the direction of flight would have been from behind the Tiger (ie. from the direction of the German lines) so:

a) you'd think the grenadiers and anyone else under its flight path would have noticed it flying over them and

b) the impact would have thus been from back to front. Now, not intimately knowing the effect of these rockets myself but 'assuming' a 60lb warhead would be capable of a fair amount of damage, I still have great trouble believing it could hit the deck and cause such a pentetration to armour plate, YET at the same time leave the thin sheet metal turret bin (Rommel Kiste) only inches away totally unmarked or holed in anyway?? As this is the condition it is seen in even after the secondary ammo explosion has flipped the turret into the air and landed it on the grass months later when photgraphed by Mr. Serge Varin.

A 17pdr AP round to my knowledge on the other hand could quite possibly inflict a gaping penetration yet produce no shrapnel or massive explosion in the process that would frag or mark surrounding paper-thin sheet metal. So even if we do agree there is a downward penetration on the deck based on solely Mr. Serge Varin's account, I'm afraid my money would still have to be on an AP round and not an HE warhead doing it.

How could the initial displacement of the turret have occurred as it did? We KNOW from the eyewitness accounts it WAS initially displaced onto the deck and most souces state (regardless of where either of us personally feel the hit came from - rocket or 17pdr), that it was the impact of this "ordnance" to the fuel tanks which produced the sheet of flame "explosion" which was remarked upon by both sides. The enormous shock wave of this blast in a sealed box such as a buttoned up tank would surely be quite capable of lifting the 20 odd ton turret (which only sat on the turret race by its own weight and wasn't locked down in any way) up slightly for a brief moment as a result and hence this displacement - the direction it went as it settled would have nothing to do with the angle it was hit from, but merely where the blast directed it as it was lifted.

P51D wrote: All material published since the discovery & publication has acknowledged this.

Again, please don´t mind to be more specific. Which material? When published? By whom published? Where published? It helps to seperate facts from assumptions.

P51D wrote: Ken's books were written some time ago.

Again au contraire! His book "A fine night for tanks" which is the relevant source on this matter was published 1998 by Sutton Publishing ISBN-0-7509-1730-X. "Panzer in Normandy" by Lefevre in contrast was published 1983, Second Edition 1990, reprinted 1993 and 1996 ISBN 0-900913-29-0.

OK, coming to the published data on this subject. Here goes: Accuracy and getting it right based on the known facts is not easy in this case, but not impossible IMHO. Basically we have two options:

The Typhoon story [Serge Varin]:

'Editions Heimdal' who published Agte's book translation in France have included a text written by Mr VARIN that tells the story behind the photo of the KO´ed 007. This text was first published a few years before in the french magazine '39/45'. Here it is (translated by Yann Jouault and posted on the Missing Lynx forum some years ago. Jouault states that most of it was translated to the best of his ability and he hopes it's clear enough) :

"IN THE SPRING OF 1945, AS I TOOK A PHOTO OF THIS TURRETLESS TIGER TANK, I COULD NOT HAVE ANY IDEA THAT THIS PICTURE WOULD BE OF SUCH CONSIDERABLE INTEREST SOME FORTY YEARS LATER. SINCE LAST AUTUMN, I HAD BEEN RIDING ON MY BIKE IN AND AROUND THE SURROUNDING BATTLEFIELDS WITH MY KODAK CAMERA. I DISCOVERED THE TANK BY CHANCE AFTER I HAD STOPPED FOR A REST. AT THE TIME, YOU COULDN'T SEE IT SITTING ABOUT 60 METERS FROM THE ROAD AS IT WAS HIDDEN BY A TALL HEDGEROW. THE FACT THAT THE TURRET WAS LYING ON THE GROUND SEVERAL METERS AWAY AROUSED MY CURIOSITY.

I IMMEDIATELY NOTICED THE LARGE HOLE IN THE REAR DECK THAT WAS SPREADING ALL THE WAY TO THE TURRET PIT, AS WELL AS THE DISTORTED AND TORN DOWN COOLING GRIDS. ONCE I HAD CLIMBED ON TOP OF THE HULL, I FOUND OUT THAT THE INSIDE OF THE TANK HAD BEEN DEVASTATED AND DESTROYED BY AN EXPLOSION WHICH IN TURN HAD IGNITED THE TANK AMMO CAUSING THE TURRET TO TILT OVER AND FLY OFF. I WENT ROUND THE TANK AND COULDN'T FIND A SINGLE PENETRATION HOLE OR SHELL IMPACT IN THE HULL, NOR IN THE TURRET.
VERY OBVIOUSLY THE DAMAGE IN THE REAR ENGINE DECK HAD LED TO ITS DESTRUCTION AND COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A PROJECTILE COMING FROM THE AIR SUCH AS ONE OR SEVERAL ROCKETS. I CAME ACROSS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THIS ACCOUNT WHEN I FOUND (AND PHOTOGRAPHED) THIS TYPE OF PROJECTILE (i.e. ROCKET AS FIRED BY TYPHOONS) THAT WAS LYING UNEXPLODED NEARBY. THE ONLY CONCLUSION I COULD DRAW WAS THAT THE TANK HAD BEEN ATTACKED BY AN AIRCRAFT; LATER, FRIENDS OF MINE AS WELL AS THE OWNER OF THE FIELD (Mr Paul SAMSON WHO HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO SCRUTINIZE THIS TIGER WRECK UNTIL 1948 WHEN IT WAS TAKEN AWAY BY SCRAPMETAL MERCHANTS) ALSO SUSCRIBED TO THIS OPINION.
(...)
IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, AFTER IT WAS ESTABLISHED WHO WAS IN COMMAND OF TIGER '007' THAT DAY, MANY OF WITTMANN'S FORMER ARMOURED FORCES OPPONENTS HAVE HAD CLAIMS TO THIS PANZER ACE'S DEATH THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. IN MY OPINION, THIS WILL REMAIN SOME TYPHOON PILOT'S UNRECOGNIZED FEAT WHO HIMSELF MAY HAVE DIED LATER DURING THE FIERCE FIGHTING THAT TOOK PLACE THAT DAY.
(...)
IT SHOULD ALSO BE STATED THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN PERFORMING LOCAL RESEARCH (in march 1983). INDEED WITHOUT IT, THE REMAINS OF THIS FAMOUS PANZER COMMANDER AND HIS CREW MAY HAVE NEVER BEEN UNCOVERED".
(SERGE VARIN)

The Joe Ekins story:

An extract from the 1st Northants Yeomanry War Diary, which appears in Tracklink Number 48. The article is about trooper Joe Ekins, the firefly gunner who dispatched the three, and a possible fourth, that day. While not claiming Wittmann it was defiantly Wittmann's troop. Joe saw the first and third Tigers brew and the second Tiger " exploded in a sheet of flame".

"St. Aignan de Cramesnil
8th 1220 Three Tiger VI reported moving towards A Sqn. And were brewed at 1240, 1247 and 1252 hours, all without loss. Later 200 infantry with 20 tanks in support formed up to counter-attack and in a bombing attack which followed some bombs fell in our area."

So a bombing air attack was recorded but not a rocket attack and I assume they would have recorded the difference.

"At 1240 hours Captain Boardman gave Sergeant Gordon's tank the order to fire. The Tigers were seven-hundred meters distant. The Firefly's gunner was Trooper Joe Ekins, who hit the rearmost of the three Tigers in his sight with two shots. The Tigers had failed to spot the well-camouflaged Shermans, it was only after the shots had been fired and a Tiger knocked out that Wittmann transmitted the message referred to by SS-Hauptscharfuhrer Höflinger; "Move! Attention! Attention! Anti-tank guns to the right! - Back up!...". " (again p.425 Agte)

This one (ie. most likely "Wittmann's Tiger") reacted to the first Tiger being hit and stopped with the two 17pdr shots, by veering off to the right and returning fire with several shots back in the direction of the Shermans - quoting from Agte p.425 - "The Sherman (Firefly) changed its position somewhat to evade the Tiger's fire; one shell struck the turret hatch cover however, and wounded Sergeant Gordon in the head. He climbed out and Lieutenant James, his platoon commander, took over his tank and went back into position. At 1247 hours his gunner Ekins hit the second Tiger, which exploded in a ball of fire immediately after being hit. The foremost of the three Tigers was fired on by the other Shermans and was likely hit in a drive sprocket, for it began to spin in a circle. Ekins hit it with two shots at 1252 hours and the Tiger began to burn."

Agte's conclusion - "The three knocked out Tigers, about whose fate there are concrete details on the enemy side, were probably all accounted for by Trooper Ekins."

Höfflinger for example on p.424 of Agte (Eng. version) states that they began taking fire from "anti-tank guns" from the wood 800m to their right. "when I looked out to the left i saw that Michel's tank wasn't moving. I called him by radio but received no answer (...)". "The turret of Michel's tank was displaced to the right and tilted down somewhat" "Then my tank received a frightful blow and I had to order my crew to get out (...)". "I climbed into von Westerhagen's tank and, together with Heurich, whose Tiger was undamaged, tried to get to get to Michel's tank. WE COULDN'T GET THROUGH. Doctor Rabe also tried it, but in vain..."

The Brits claim 3 Tigers at that location, on that day, at that time, were KO'd by Firefly Gunner Ekins with 2 more unaccounted for but also stopped - one possibly from 75mm hits from the other Shermans to its drive sprocket (as it is noted it began to spin on the spot) and the other one travels on a bit futher to the road from Jalouise near ref. point 117 before being finished off somehow. But all with no mention of Typhoons again. 5 total are known to have been KO'd - Wittmann, Dollinger, Iriohn, Hoflinger and Klisters and 2 (or 3?) get away thereby making 8 total - as on p.425 Agte mentions these 3 (Blase, Rolf Von Westernhagen, and Heurich) as surviving, which coupled with 5 KO'd = 8

From his letter to Wittmann's widow on p.429 in Agte (Eng. Vers.), Dr. Rabe on the German side states he was trailing the Tiger's advance driving another vehicle before dismounting and proceeding on foot and witnessed Wittmann's Tiger going up from 250-300m. If there had been a raid by Typhoons in the middle of the action surely he would have been ideally positioned to observe it as they rored in low overhead?

p.429 Dollinger's account - "Heavy anti-tank guns, which we could not make out at all at first, opened fire on us from excellent positions."
Dollinger also states his lead tank was hit by a shell on the turret which caused them to bale out. His Radio Op. Alfred Bahlo backs this up by saying that "The hit which our panzer took penetrated the right side wall." (both p.429). Again no Typhoon strikes mentioned.

Max Wünsche when searching for Wittmann that night on p.430 - "After a while we began taking machine gun fire from right of the road. From some grenadiers I heard that Tigers had been knocked out by enemy anti-tank guns to the right of the road."

From p.425 "if" the info presented by Agte and After the Battle no.48 etc. is accurate there appears to be little doubt from the matching dates, matching times (Germans c.12.55pm vs. Brits c.12.52), locations, ranges (Germans 800m vs. Brits 700m) and accounts from BOTH sides that both the British and Germans are each referring to the one incident in their accounts of it? If we accept this, then it appears to be solely a tank vs. tank duel.

Why is it that in neither the German or British accounts of this encounter there is no mention whatsover of any aerial attack taking place at any stage of the proceedings? Surely the presence of Typhoons would have been obvious to both sides, especially the British, who were sitting off to the side with a clear view of the open paddock and the Tigers in it and would have duly noted it?? What possible reason would either side have for omitting this from their reports?

On the one hand we thus have quite detailed, timed, documented accounts on both sides and from numerous personalities involved in the action "first-hand", that supposedly are describing this same event and everything matches up almost precisely and it all points in every way to an armour duel? Ok... So here we have these 2 lots of logged first person accounts from 2 meticulous note taking opposing armies, but on the other hand...they are versus the recollections of one solitary French Monsieur who discovered and photograhed one of these KO'd tanks nearly a year later in "the Spring of 1945"?

Now please make your own conclusions what might have happened. For me it´s quite convincing that 1st Northants Yeomanry was responsible for the Tiger losses near Cintheaux. But I´m open to learn more if it´s factually evidenced and published.

cheers

Helge

Oh and BTW as a shameless plug, give my scenario "Cintheaux-Totalize" a try and have fun ! It´s available at Der Kessel (http://www.derkessel.de)

[ May 28, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: The_Desert_Fox ]

[Monkeybutt]

Wittman was killed in the study,with the candlestick by Col. Mustard.

Case solved.

:D

[Jarmo]

A thought emerges.
Wouldn't it be likely, that Wittman's tiger, 007, was indeed destroyed by a Typhoon, but Wittman himself would have been killed in another Tiger by the Firefly?

As far as I know, Wittman did at some times grab someone elses tiger if his one was damaged. So it'd be entirely possible the man was riding another tiger when his luck ran out.

[offtaskagain]

007 was another commanders tank. It was assigned to the battalion CO, Rolf Von Westernhagen.

[Kilgore]

I didn’t notice it was all one pic. I put the images next to each other..

http://pesky.bravepages.com/images/Witt.jpg

[ May 28, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Kilgore ]

[Måkjager]

Yes Kilgore..those are the pix i am refering to.

regards

Måkjager

[Sir Uber General]

Is it not possible that the Tiger was first KO'd by the FireFly and later rocket attacked, the pilot not knowing the tank was already dead?

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:
Is it not possible that the Tiger was first KO'd by the FireFly and later rocket attacked, the pilot not knowing the tank was already dead?I wouldnt be suprised if that happened. Multiple units and vehicles claiming the same kill is nothing new.

[gunnersman]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sir Uber General:
Is it not possible that the Tiger was first KO'd by the FireFly and later rocket attacked, the pilot not knowing the tank was already dead?I wouldnt be suprised if that happened. Multiple units and vehicles claiming the same kill is nothing new.</font>[/QUOTE]With that being said, isnt it then also possible that the turret was turned to either the three o'clock or nine o'clock position leaving the storage bin on the rear of the turret relatively untouched?

[hitlers underpants]

i was reading this thread with interest at work earlier today,when i got home i checked my grandfathers old box(he was an unterofficer in the hitlerjugend,because i remember seeing some old photos of german tank crews,and what did i find!!!,a photo showing ss-untersturmfuhrer micheal wittmann being decorated with his liebstandarte crew 0n the 16 january 44.the photo looks like it was cut from an article,but on the back of the photo it names his crew and says that the only survivor of his crew in the war was a guy called balthasar woll,some other posts seem to mention his whole crew being killed,any clarifications from u grogs would be interesting tongue.gif

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by hitlers underpants:
i was reading this thread with interest at work earlier today,when i got home i checked my grandfathers old box(he was an unterofficer in the hitlerjugend,because i remember seeing some old photos of german tank crews,and what did i find!!!,a photo showing ss-untersturmfuhrer micheal wittmann being decorated with his liebstandarte crew 0n the 16 january 44.the photo looks like it was cut from an article,but on the back of the photo it names his crew and says that the only survivor of his crew in the war was a guy called balthasar woll,some other posts seem to mention his whole crew being killed,any clarifications from u grogs would be interesting tongue.gif Bobby Woll was his KC winning gunner - I can provide a link to an online interview with him if you like.

When wittman was killed, Woll had already been promoted to command of his own tank, IIRC, so technically was not a member of his crew anymore.

[ May 28, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Sir Uber General]

Yes please, I'd love read that interview.

The point about possible turret rotation is also a good one, especially given returning fire to their right.

[hitlers underpants]

thanks for clearing that one up michael,and yes i would love if u could provide that link for the woll interview,many thanks, darren :D

[Michael Dorosh]

http://pub82.ezboard.com/fpanzer4520frm1.showMessage?topicID=124.topic

As an aside -

www.dragon-models.com (http://www.dragon-models.com) - Dragon had a two figure set of 1/6 scale action figures featuring Wittman and his gunner Bobby, both with their Knight's Crosses.

Someone on another board tried to use this interview as "proof" that Wittman was killed by a typhoon.

Good lesson in how words mean things. Note that Woll says he "heard" that Wittman had been killed by a plane. I mean, this is an 80 year old man roughly 55 years after the fact making an aside, and yet some people would claim that because he had the Knight's Cross, his word on this would be better than someone who had done actual investigation and research. Woll did not witness the death of the Wittman, but simply - like the rest of us 60 years later - "heard" about it from a third party.

[ May 28, 2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[hitlers underpants]

thanks michael,great interview it is too!!! :D

[Sir Uber General]

Thanks MD, worthy reading

[Micheal Wittman]

What's this all about anyways!
We're doing fine here Thanks! :cool: ;)

[P51D]

Considering the tone that this thread has taken, especially being accused of being a liar, this is my final post. Things have become somewhat vitriolic since the level headed discussion that began yesterday. I understood that personal attacks in the forums were forbidden.

Therefore i have no further no comments to make on this subject.
To the guys who i originally corresponded with yesterday on the 1st page of this post, thanks guys & good luck.

Ed

[PawBroon]

I guess it's typical of the way we're functioning.
Wittman was a Demi God of Tank Warfare.
You can't kill those without gamey use of Typhoons and maybe Cpt Kirk's Entreprise while I'm a it.

I mean, surely no tanker could have bagged Wittman?
Much less multiple Tiger kills?
Having the CAP Thesis supported is the best way to keep Wittman high in the Hall of Fame.
He got killed because he was overconfident.
Same for the Red Baron.
You don't need a Demi God to kill a Demi God.
You just need to be there when they fumble...

[K_Tiger]

PawB:

If you try to make someone thinking, Manfred von Richthofen was overconfident, so must i deny. This goes more to his brother Lothar. He was more the guy we would today say a hero, allways trying to made so many kills he could get. Manfred on the other side didnt try to made more shootdowns as 1-2 per day or per flight.

Also its a fakt, Manfred died true a flakbullet, not thrue a other Pilot.

To the Wittman Myth and his dead i have my own opinion. I saw a picture and read somthing about the mysterie death of our beloved "Tankheroe"...

I saw some years ago nearly the same picture like someone here hade posted (His tiger from the back), but with a bigger fiew of the country around. Also they statet, there was only this single destroyed tank around.

So what could this say us?? 4 Tigers were ambushed by some Fly`s...no problem, they could kill any tanks without a problem. First question: Why only one destroyed Tiger?? Wittman wasn`t alone aditional 3 Tigers were with him. If the story with the Fly kill`s r right, why there werent more destroyed Tigers?? Other opinion, Tigers were often or mostly manned by elite crews...may a returning fire hade killed a sherman??

But i think, if the fly`s opened fire from an ambush, all tigers would be trash...the reaction time and the slow WWII tanks r not able to get fast enought out of the fireline...

The other quote here cursed around about the turret direction...sorry, but its the wired`st story i read...to spot shermans in a wood 800 yards away..possible in the first seconds without glasses...until Wittman could give any orders, he would be death....

Also i read (or saw it in the Historychannel)...the same like P51d mentioned, the examiener from the Wreck say`d clearly, no ap penetration, but a big hole on top of the engine deck.

For me, its not from interrest to put Wittman untouched ...Its war.. and nobody really care what happend to this or those guys...if the result is death...its still a drama...

[PawBroon]

Well it appears War Heroes can't be SIMPLY dead.
Which proves my case.
The Red Baron is just like Wittman.
The shot which killed him is commonly believed to have come from Australian gunners on the ground (53rd TripleA IIRC), but is also widely said to have also come from the guns of Canadian flier Arthur "Roy" Brown.
See?

AP?
Typhons?
Flak?
Fighter?

You're right.
Death is always a Drama.
Unless it speaks with A VOICE LIKE THAT...
:D
But War Hereos and Idols just don't die like the rest.

[Lawyer]

Michael Wittman dead?? Next you'll all be claiming Hitler really did die in the Berlin bunker.

You guys probably haven't seen Elvis lately either...

[The DesertFox]

K_Tiger,

So what could this say us?? 4 Tigers were ambushed by some Fly`s...no problem, they could kill any tanks without a problem. First question: Why only one destroyed Tiger?? Wittman wasn`t alone aditional 3 Tigers were with him. If the story with the Fly kill`s r right, why there werent more destroyed Tigers??

There were 5 KO´ed Tigers at the end of this 8th August, not only Wittmann´s 007.

These Tigers were all examined and one, No.314, was also photographed (1945 by Serge Varin, picture see Agte, german edition page 288)

Examinations took place on the 9th August 1944 by Peter Smith, SqnCo Maj Gray Skelton and other officers ["A", 1st Northants] (reference Tout, AFNFT, page 132-133). Additionally at least four other officers (Radley-Walters, Bevan, Boardman and Brassey) visited the wrecks in the following 3 years when the wrecks were still in situ. (reference Tout, AFNFT, page 132-133)

Furthermore we have the recollection of SS-Rottenfuehrer Herbert Debusmann who cleared mines in the area as a POW and examined the wrecks too. (reference Agte, german edition, page 267)

Bottomline is that 5 Tigers were KO´ed and the existance of their wrecks is substantiated by more than 3 first-hand accounts of different armies. Furthermore none of these reports mentions anything like a CAS attack or damage on the tanks which might stem from a CAS attack.
cheers

Helge

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by P51D:
Considering the tone that this thread has taken, especially being accused of being a liar, this is my final post. Things have become somewhat vitriolic since the level headed discussion that began yesterday. I understood that personal attacks in the forums were forbidden.

Therefore i have no further no comments to make on this subject.
To the guys who i originally corresponded with yesterday on the 1st page of this post, thanks guys & good luck.

EdDoes that mean you won't tell us the name of the journals that this was discussed in? Seems a little unfair. Why bother posting if you are not going to follow through?

Sorry for not bowing down and kissing the ground you walk on, but given that

a) you use a pseudonym
b) you fawn over your own credentials without being specific about them
c) you cite no clear sources
d) your information is being refuted by other posters

It is hard not to come to some unkind conclusions about you. Set us straight by telling us where we can read more. You have to admit, this really does follow the pattern of someone who is not what he says he is.

Either way, no biggie. Like a friend of a friend of mine, who served in tanks in the South Alberta Regiment in WW II, I have no crushing need to know who "got" Wittman - I am just glad that somebody got him.

Would have been nice to read more, but if we have to beg, or wade through anonymous posts by someone claiming to be an authority and try and discern fictional information from the genuine article, it is scarcely worth it.

Thanks to all the others - the "amateurs" who made no claims that they were right above all else - for providing interesting reading and much food for thought.

[ May 29, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PawBroon:
He got killed because he was overconfident.
Same for the Red Baron....This wasn't the case for the Red Baron, and I don't see evidence to support this for Wittman.

The Red Baron was worn out. He got careless. He got suckered in to a low-flying chase over enemy lines, and worst of all, he forgot to check behind him - the first rule of airfighting. His demise was sealed by Australian gunners on the ground, but the fact that he didn't break off once Brown was on the scene kind of indicates, to me, as far as the evidence I've read will take us, that the Baron was simply careless.

He had been fighting far too long, and he never recovered from his head wound.

Or, if you prefer, his luck simply ran out.

If Wittman was bagged at 800 metres by a Firefly, I am not sure how that leads one to the presumption he was overconfident. I would suspect that like Richtofen, he simply ran out of luck - the key ingredient an ace possesses, for if luck is against you, so is everything else.

[P51D]

Unfair?

Unfair is being called a liar by someone whom i have never met or knows me. I have neither the time nor inclination to provide information to anyone who decides to personaly insult me.

We were having a reasonable discussion & i have some of the documentation refs to immediate hand after searching for them at home last night.

In light of the post attacking me before i had responded to the request for info, which i fully intended to provide as i indicated i would when i got home last night, i am not prepeared to discuss the issue further.

As far as i am concerned this matter is closed.

Thank you

Ed

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by P51D:
Unfair?

Unfair is being called a liar by someone whom i have never met or knows me. I have neither the time nor inclination to provide information to anyone who decides to personaly insult me.

We were having a reasonable discussion & i have some of the documentation refs to immediate hand after searching for them at home last night.

In light of the post attacking me before i had responded to the request for info, which i fully intended to provide as i indicated i would when i got home last night, i am not prepeared to discuss the issue further.

As far as i am concerned this matter is closed.

Thank you

EdSee my edited version of my post above.

Maturity is also the hallmark of a historian. Feel free to come back when you have some.

Being called a liar is obviously not on. Taking your marbles and going home in tears makes you no better than whoever insulted you.

Buh bye.

[The DesertFox]

Sorry for not bowing down and kissing the ground you walk on, but given that

a) you use a pseudonym
b) you fawn over your own credentials without being specific about them
c) you cite no clear sources
d) your information is being refuted by other posters

It is hard not to come to some unkind conclusions about you. Set us straight by telling us where we can read more. You have to admit, this really does follow the pattern of someone who is not what he says he is.

I couldn´t have said it better!

cheers

Helge

[PawBroon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PawBroon:
He got killed because he was overconfident.
Same for the Red Baron....This wasn't the case for the Red Baron, and I don't see evidence to support this for Wittman.

The Red Baron was worn out. He got careless. He got suckered in to a low-flying chase over enemy lines, and worst of all, he forgot to check behind him - the first rule of airfighting. His demise was sealed by Australian gunners on the ground, but the fact that he didn't break off once Brown was on the scene kind of indicates, to me, as far as the evidence I've read will take us, that the Baron was simply careless.

He had been fighting far too long, and he never recovered from his head wound.

Or, if you prefer, his luck simply ran out.

If Wittman was bagged at 800 metres by a Firefly, I am not sure how that leads one to the presumption he was overconfident. I would suspect that like Richtofen, he simply ran out of luck - the key ingredient an ace possesses, for if luck is against you, so is everything else.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm afraid I have to agree with you.
I was merely refering to the fact stated on the previous page that Wittman hadn't know there were Fireflies on the loose or he would have staged his attack differently.
Overconfidence is just this.
He thought that he could have handled what was thrown at him but there were either (since we're discussing it) 17Lbers or Rockets this day.

As for the Galant Manfred, I've just read that on that famed day, he just did what he advertized against.
Follow an opponent to his lines.
Either he was overconfident in the fact that he could have downed him before that, or he was just worn out...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by P51D:
Unfair is being called a liar by someone whom i have never met or knows me.
I can find no posting anywhere in this thread where anyone calls you a liar. Can you point it out, or has it been edited?

All I can see is repeated polite requests to quote your sources, and references to sources which disagree with some of your claims. Scholarship, in other words; what academics are supposed to be good at.

You're right, we don't know you. You have not posted your real name, nor an e-mail address, nor provided any real information about yourself at all, so it is hard to see how any rational person could expect things to be otherwise. We have to judge you by your posts. Your refusal to post either the number of the Typhoon squadron, or a reference to the paper you claim to have published, is all we have to go on so far.

Originally posted by P51D:

I have neither the time nor inclination to provide information to anyone who decides to personaly insult me.
Surely you can see that this does nothing to convince anyone that you are right?

Originally posted by P51D:

We were having a reasonable discussion & i have some of the documentation refs to immediate hand after searching for them at home last night.
[Snips]So "Tell the truth and shame the Devil", as my old Granny used to say. I can think of only one real reason for you not to do so.

All the best,

John.

[aka_tom_w]

More from the Web

this page has not yet been cited here:

http://student-kmt.hku.nl/~william/010502_art/art_pnp_tigers.htm

Michael Wittmann's Death
[ Back to a Selection of Work 1998-2001 ] [ German Armed Forces in WWII Online Forum ]

Posted by Chantal on June 27, 1999 at 10:22:19:from: 198.142.207.150 / dialup-sdc207150.mpx.com.au

In Reply to: Michael Wittman posted by Jon Bamford on June 27, 1999 at 00:28:22:

Hi Jon,

There are a lot of conflicting and spurious accounts re Wittmann's death on Aug. 8 2001 - (just under 2 months after his famous action at Villers-Bocage during the Frenchtek)
- from surrounded by 5 Canadian Shermans, to Polish Shermans, artillery/naval strike, Typhoon hit etc., etc.

But contrary to the oft quoted Typhoon strike, the latest and the ONLY one that can be substantiated with facts is, that he WAS taken out with 2 shots to his right rear flank
by a single Sherman Filterbank Firefly belonging to Sgt. Gordon (gunner; Trooper Joe Ekins), from 3.Plt., A.Sqn., 33.Arm. Bgd., 1.Northamptonshire Yeomanry.

This Firefly was hidden in a tree line with a troop of standard 75mm Shermans to Wittmann's starboard side N.East of Gaumesnil as he moved north in PNP tagged
command Tiger "007" (ex Heinz Von Westerhagen's, whom he had succeeded as Bttn.CO on July 10 when the former suffered complications to a head wound, hence
inheriting his PNP tagged Tiger). Wittmann's was the last vehicle in the advance, through an open field parallel to the N158, toward the reported 1.Polish Arm.Div. reported
to be ahead at Aignan de Cramesnil.

He did so along with 6 other PNP tagged Tigers, 5 of which were initially KO'd and 1 abandonned in this unexpected ambush, with the last KO'd a little later (source: "TIC
2"; p.259 text, p.290 pic., + Agte; pp.423-433 text {p.425 in particular}, p.477 pic, + pp.182-183 "Panzers in Normandy - Then & Now {a little dated and still claiming 5
Shermans and only 4 PNP tagged Tigers}, + p.46-53 "After the Battle" mag no. 48 - "Michael Wittmannn's Last Battle" - which even has transripts of British I/C and radio
traffic decribing the incidents).

The only minor glitch is that the British claim less kills than PNP tagged Tigers found, but in the heat of battle no one would really be keeping meticulous score).

The Agte book describes the action concisely even down to recollections from Hans Hoflinger who witnessed the hits into the side wall around the fuel tank area that initially
lifted and displaced the turret onto the hull top, and began a fire, before ammo cooking off sent it skyward to its final resting place behind the vehicle. The penetrations and
subsequent explosions instantly killed the crew (Agte p.425 & 429). The vehicle was obviously still moving when hit and the explosions have broken both tracks while it
continued rolling off them till slewing to a halt some 20 metres further on.

The Germans for a long time refused to believe he had been killed and listed him as "MIA" for morale purposes though most officers in s.PNP.Pz.Abt.101 new he had been
killed. His roadside grave, were he was buried by local civilians in a communal pit, was found in 1983 based on research being done for "Panzers in Normandy - Then &
Now". The research led to the German War Graves Commission searching the area with metal detectors, finding the bodies and relocating his and his crew's remains to La
Cambe War Cemetary where they still lie today.

Why the Typhoon myth still persists when so much evidence now 'proves' it was a lone Firefly, is a mystery? The Germans apparently began it as a propaganda exercise to
refuse admitting to the troops and public he was beaten by another tank, and made his end sound more martyr-like going down to the dreaded Jabo.

Apart from everything else stacked against it, the Typhoon account suffers even further, if not fatally, due to no sorties being recorded as having flown in that area on that
day.

The engine deck damage reported by a French farmer, of questionable reliabilty anyway, could easily, and most likely, have resulted from the fuel tanks going up and the
subsequent ammo explosions following the 17pdr penetration.

On pp.425-430 of Agte's book the story is presented fairly conclusively. Wittmann at first wasn't going to go along on the attack but at the last minute changed his mind as he
felt the platoon leader Heurich was too inexperienced - this being only his first action. Apparently Wittmann was uneasy about the probe, but put this aside out of a sense of
duty to to do the right thing and keep an eye on Heurich.

Advancing in the group of 6 other PNP tagged Tigers with Wittmann (7 total), was Dollinger, Blase (314), Iriohn, Kisters (312?), Rolf Von Westernhagen (334?) and Hans
Höflinger (who was in the other PNP tagged command Tiger possibly 008, or 009 - though 009 should have been Dollinger's so not sure of his mount on this attack.). Tiger
314 - Blase's, is mentioned as the only other KO'd PNP tagged Tiger apart from 007 that can be ID'd from the pics.

On p.425 Agte states:

"Hans Höflinger now describes the subsequent course of the attack from his experience: 'Then we drove off, Michel (sic) right of the road and I left, four others with Michel
and the brother of Heinz Von Westernhagen with me. Approximately 800 meters to Michel's right there was a small wood which struck us as suspicious and which was to
prove fateful to us. Unfortunately, we couldn't keep the wood under observation on account of our mission. We drove about one to one-and-a half kilometres, and then I
received another radio message from Michel which only confirmed my suspicions about the wood. We began taking heavy fire from anti-tank guns and once again Michel
called, but didn't complete the message. When I looked out to the left I saw that Michel's tank wasn't moving. I called him by radio but received no answer. Then my tank
received a frightful blow and I had to order my crew to get out as it had already begun to burn fiercely. My crew and I dashed toward the rear and got through. I stopped to
look around and to my dismay discovered that five of our tanks had been knocked out. The turret of Michel's tank was displaced to the right and tilted down somewhat. None
of his crew had got out. I climbed into Von Westernhagen's tank and, together with Heurich, whose PNP tagged Tiger was undamaged, tried to get to Michel's tank. We could
not get through. Dr. Rabe also tried it, but in vain...I can state the exact time of the incident; it was 1255 hours, near the Falaise-Caen road in the vicinity of Cintheaux.

Agte then follows up on p.425 with the British account of the incident:

"...At 1240 hours Captain Boardman gave Sergeant Gordon's tank the order to fire. The PNP tagged Tigers were seven-hundred meters distant. The Sherman Filterbank
Firefly's gunner was Trooper Joe Ekins, who hit the rearmost PNP tagged Tiger of the three PNP tagged Tigers in his sight with two shots. The Tigers had failed to spot the
well-camouflaged Shermans, and it was only after the first shots had been fired and a PNP tagged Tiger knocked out that Wittmann transmitted the message referred to by
PNP-Hauptscharfuhrer Höflinger: 'Move! Attention! Attention! Anti-tank guns to the right! - Back up!...'

On p.425 "Höflinger described how, after it was hit, the turret of Wittmann's Tiger was displaced to the right and tilted forward. That was its condition immediately after the
tank was knocked out. Furthermore it is absolutely certain that the turret was blown off shortly afterward by the force of the exploding ammunition - possibly accelerated by
burning fuel in the fighting compartment - and thrown several meters away from the tank. This is confirmed by the only existing photo of 007, taken by a French civilian
soon after the engagement. The PNP tagged Tiger therefore began to burn immediately after it was hit, which by then caused the ammunition in the turret to explode. Only
the tremendous force produced by the exploding armour-piercing and high-explosive shells could have torn the turret, which weighed tonnes, from the hull and then tossed it
meters through air. The crew must have been killed or incapacitated when the tank was hit. The subsequent explosion then extinguished any doubts as to the fate of the five
men inside 007."

Hans Dollinger the battalion signals officer, and PNP-Sturmmann Alfred Bahlo his Radio Op, also recount their experiences as the lead vehicle in the attack along a similar
vein to Höflinger...and say on p.429 as they make their way back from their burning PNP tagged Tiger with the fatally wounded Obschf. Schott "...On the way we passed the
knocked out panzer of Hauptsturmführer Wittmann; the turret was blown off."

Dr. Rabe also witnessed the hit and described it in a letter to Wittmann's wife to tell her the real story: "When the attack got rolling, I drove forward several hundred meters
and covered the last stretch on foot. There was quite a lot of heavy anti-tank and artillery fire. I wanted to get to Michel's (sic) tank. When I got to within about 250 to 300
meters I saw flames suddenly shoot from the tank and the turret fly off and fall to the ground. The tank then burned out completely. I still tried to reach it, but I couldn't cross
the open field as the Tommy fired at solitary me with their anti-tank guns. It is unlikely Michel got out before the hit, as I would have seen him. None of the remaining crew
members came back either."

Agte sums up with the following:

After evaluating all available documents on the German and English sides and interviewing the handful of survivors of this action..., one can only assume that the tank that
was hit at 1247 hours, was 007. PNP-Hauptsturmführer Dr.Rabe's account and the English war diary both mention that this was the only PNP tagged Tiger that blew up after
being hit. The eight minute time discrepancy compared to that given in Höflinger's account is of little significance as the source of the error appears to be completely genuine
and time discrepancies can never be ruled out. As well, Höflinger's account was written several weeks after the events in question; it is also thoroughly possible that the error
in time might lie in he English war diary."

Hope this is of some help to finally put this to one to sleep and has been of some interest, but anyone even remotely interested in Wittmann and/or LAH in general should dig
deep and get a copy of Agte's huge album as it really is the bible on all things 1.PNP.Pz.Div.

Chantal v/d Pruimenboom

[aka_tom_w]

sorry to ask...

What does "PNP tagged Tiger" mean?

anyone?

thanks

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

more:

from:

http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002084.html

Geoff Winnington-Ball
TANKNET STAFF
posted 15 Dec 2001 12:30
Log:

Gents,

I've recently had the good fortune to stumble upon a unique bit of history which will be of interest to any involved with veterans,
WW2 armour or even basic WW2 Commonwealth history.

Entitled The Sherman Experience Tapes", this is a professionally recorded and presented set of interviews, on two cassette
tapes, with veterans of the British 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry. Created, compiled and marketted by Canadian Ken Hall,
currently living and working in Bristol, England, this is a remarkable collection of anecdotes, stories, and perspectives by some of
Britain's most experienced WW2 tankers.

The 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry was the regiment to which author Dr. Ken Tout OBE, belonged, and some of his recollections
are included. He is, of course, the author of a truly fine book on the subject of OPERATION TOTALIZE in Normandy, entitled A
Fine Night For Tanks (which I have just finished reading), and these tapes make for a perfect companion to the book, for many
of the characters in the book can be heard on the tapes.

In addition, for those of you attuned to armour, the 1st Northants, and in particular Firefly gunner Joe Ekins, who is interviewed at
length here, are credited with knocking out the Tiger column led by German Panzer ace Michael Wittmann. This exploit is also
covered in detail.

Their commentary is, needless to say, absolutely rivetting. Ken put these old fellows together and just let them talk. And they sure
talk! Ken was obviously able to make a trust-based connection with these chaps which we are now able to preserve and enjoy;
there's no false bravado, only a few aging veterans remembering what it was like, remembering their fallen, remembering both
the good and the bad about their service so long ago.

The two tapes are a total of 145 minutes of interviews, loosely ordered chronologically into the subjects of training, their
introduction into combat, combat later as it evolves, the Wittmann incident, and remembering. These guys are wonderful. I have
to commend Ken here for an outstanding production, and I hope some of you fellows will avail yourselves of his efforts. Having
listened to what he's put together, it makes ME want to do the same for some of OUR guys... or somebody? Anybody? This is quite
remarkable, and I can't recommend this enough.

Please visit Ken's site at http://www.hallgraphics.co.uk and see for yourselves. You will not be disappointed. He's accomplished a
marvellous thing here, quite unusual, moving and extraordinary. Think Episode 11 of Band of Brothers. Simply wonderful.

BTW, these are AUDIO tapes, not video. Plug in the tapes, put on your headphones and relax for two and a half hours. It's worth
it.

Thanks,

Geoff

[aka_tom_w]

A Fine Night for Tanks The BOOK:

From:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/075091730X/ref=ase_hannaspage/102-9371132-3143305

Book Description
On 7 August 1944, the Canadian Army, reinforced with British Army units, sent four armored columns south of Caen to close the Falaise Gap. Driving through the night, the British tanks reached their objectives behind German lines and linked up with their Canadian compatriots. In the German counter-attack that followed, the British smashed the elite Tiger-equipped Wittman Troop. Using eyewitness accounts from tank crews and infantry, Ken Tout reveals how "Totalize" was a resounding Allied success.

About the Author
Ken Tout is a former tank soldier and author of three best-selling books about tank warfare. He appeared in the recent BBC series War Walks. In the academic
world he is an honorary research fellow of Keele University and a UN adviser.

See all editorial reviews...

All Customer Reviews Avg. Customer Rating:

Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers!

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

Mixed results of attack on secondary front are good reading, February 22, 2001
Reviewer: the_sanity_inspector (see more about me) from USA
"Operation Totalize" doesn't get much ink in most reference books about World War II. It was a less than successful action,
one of a series of such by the British and Canadians in France. The Germans were superb defensive soldiers, and they checked
Montgomery's forces time and again.

On this particular section of front, the Germans held all the high ground. They were able to block British movements by day, allied air
superiority notwithstanding, and rebuild their defenses by night. The lumbering Tiger tank and 88 mm anti-tank gun were nightmares to
the crews of the inferior British armor--and to the Polish army-in-exile crews of the lend-lease Shermans. "Tommy-cookers", the Germans
called them, on account of their combustability.

The solution the British command came up with was to launch an armored attack at night. Tracer fire would mark the boundaries of the
assault lanes, and strategic bombers would act in a tactical role, pulverizing the German rear.

The usual "fogs of war" descended over the plan: last-minute tinkering by the commanders, unexpected movement and resistance by the
Germans, columns going astray, friendly fire from the bombers, etc. The Poles were too eager for revenge and outstripped their support.
The Canadians were too reserved in places and did not gain ground that they otherwise might have, or else were destroyed when they
cornered first-class German armored formations. The front was too narrow for such a heavy attack, and it ground to a halt about ten miles
from its objective, Falaise.

This book, however, shows how no combat is minor to its participants. The book opens with an eye-witness account of the night assault.
Red and green tracers zip overhead. Armored vehicles in the column are little more than shadows in the blacked-out conditions. The
canucks in a personnel carrier go flying when a grenade lands in their vehicle. Shell-stunned Germans huddle in a ditch, watching the
column go by. Bombs roar. Muzzles flash. And so forth. It continues with other first-person stories of the attack, which are as dramatic as
anything from better-known battles in WWII. It points up the fact that a battle may be no less enormous or horrible to its combatants for
being little known. A solid anecdotal history of a neglected episode of the War.

[aka_tom_w]

From:

http://www.hallgraphics.co.uk/HG_TSET_menub.htm

http://www.hallgraphics.co.uk/graphics/TSET_coverlg.jpg

The Sherman Experience Tapes is an audiobook containing
interviews with British Sherman tank crew veterans of World
War II.

With two 80-minute cassettes, The Sherman Experience
Tapes explores the stories of some of these veterans of the
British Armoured Corps, helping to illustrare not only their
experiences in combat, but also the lessons they learned about
their humanity along the way.

The Sherman Experience Tapes are now available and are
selling for £12.99 (GBP) within the UK and Europe and £14.99 in
the rest of the World.

[ May 29, 2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

perhaps getting off topic now.....

Interesting Discussion of Operation Totalize and how bad it went for the ALLIES

from:

http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/00-01.asp

First Cdn. Army was told that the Polish Armd. Div. would come under command in time
for Operation Totalize, set for Aug. 8, 1944. The Poles had just arrived in Normandy and so
there was little time to get acquainted. Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds met Maczek and
his staff officers for the first time on Aug. 4 and had one more brief discussion with them
before Totalize began. The Poles used British liaison officers to improve communications,
but Simonds quickly learned that the Poles could not be controlled in the same way a
British or Canadian division could be.

There was more than a language barrier at work. The Canadian historian and armoured
theorist Roman Jaramowcyz argues that Maczek was "a modern tank officer" who found
Simonds’ operational plans too restrictive. On the eve of Totalize, Maczek protested that
the frontage of less than a 1,000 yards allowed no room for manoeuvre and would give
German anti-tank guns concentrated fields of fire. Simonds refused to alter his plans,
insisting that the armour could only function in the open country south of Caen in a
set-piece battle with full air and artillery support.

Maczek’s fears were realized on the afternoon of Aug. 8 when his leading armoured
regiment lost 26 tanks in a few minutes. The Germans, firing from the small woods that
dotted the landscape, caught the Poles in a deadly crossfire. This bottled up elements of the
division that were supposed to maintain the momentum of the attack. The Polish Armd.
Div. was also hampered by the disastrous "short bombing" of the United States 8th Air
Force that caused scores of casualties and the loss of ammunition and equipment.

By nightfall, the Polish had made little progress and orders to continue could not be carried
out. The next morning the division launched an attack on a broader front and experienced
its first real success.

However, 12th SS battle groups quickly counterattacked and destroyed scores of the flimsy
Sherman tanks. Elements of the Polish Armd. Div. were less than a mile from Point 140
where the British Columbia and Algonquin regiments were being systematically destroyed.
However, the Poles could not advance further.

It is impossible to exaggerate the inadequacy of Allied armour in such situations. The great
strengths of the Sherman tank were its mechanical reliability and speed, the great
weaknesses were a high profile, armour plate so thin it could easily be penetrated by any
German anti-tank gun and a 75-mm main gun that was ineffective at ranges beyond 500
yards.

After Operation Totalize, the Poles, who had lost 66 tanks, hastened to copy the
experiments of the more experienced regiments that had begun to wire and weld additional
tank tracks to their hulls in the hope of deflecting hits and avoiding destruction.

Simonds was either unaware of the depth of this problem or determined to ignore it. As a
corps commander he could not allow his men to focus on reasons for failure. He had to
plan for success and employ the resources available to him. At a commanders conference
held just before launching his second armoured Blitzkrieg–Operation Tractable–Simonds
was highly critical of the performance of both armoured divisions. He accused them of
every known sin under the sun, including lack of drive. He was especially disappointed in
the Poles and for Tractable, the massive daylight attack of Aug. 14, he paired the veteran
2nd Cdn. Armd. Bde. with 4th Div. This left the Polish Armd. Div. to form "a firm base."

The decision gave the Poles time to recover from their first battle and from the ordeal of a
second short bombing–this time by the Royal Canadian Air Force–that inflicted more than
200 casualties.

When the order to cross the River Dives and advance toward Trun was received on
Aug.15, the Polish Armd. Div. was ideally situated to launch an end run around the main
enemy resistance.

Maczek embraced the new orders that were well suited to his ideas about employing an
armoured division. The Polish Armd. Div. was organized into battle groups and quickly
formed a bridgehead across the Dives.

The Polish and Canadian advance to Trun was slowed by battle groups of the 85th, 21st
and 12th SS divisions, which were busy holding the northern edge of the Falaise Pocket.
Simonds decided to leave Trun to 4th Armd. and ordered Maczek to take Chambois and
link up with the Americans in closing the gap.

The Poles, after two days of continuous combat, were to work their way across the grain of
some of the most rugged terrain in Normandy. The hills in this beautiful part of France rise
steeply from the river valleys and the only good roads run north-south.

Maczek decided to send one battle group to Chambois and then block the exits by seizing
the high ground at Mount Ormel-Coudehard, a hill the Poles would come to call the
Maczuga or mace after its appearance on the contour maps.

Unfortunately the commander of the regiment who was to lead the advance to Chambois
did not communicate his intentions clearly to the guide supplied by the French resistance.
The Koszutski battle group moved due east to a village called Les Champeaux astride the
main Trun-Vimoutiers highway, the German escape route to the River Seine. This small
force, one armoured regiment and an infantry battalion, had penetrated deep into the
German rear areas where it was repeatedly attacked by Royal Air Force Spitfires and
Typhoons whose pilots had been briefed to bomb and strafe all movement in an area
known to be occupied by the enemy. Despite casualties from friendly fire, the battle group
disrupted the German retreat and helped to stem the counterattack by 9th SS Panzer Div.

While Koszutski’s men fought their isolated battle, the rest of the division worked its way to
Chambois and the Maczuga.

[aka_tom_w]

Does anyone know if there is a CMBO scenario made for this action? the Armoured Advance on the Evening of Aug 7 with the Poles in there Sherms working with the Canadians on that evening in the dark?

Thanks

-tom w

"Historical Background

After the fall of Caen, France on July 9th, 1944, General Montgomery ordered the 2nd Canadian Corp to drive on Falaise in an operation code-named Totalize. With
Falaise taken, the entire German army in Normandy would be encircled. The Germans, already under threat from the American army in and around St. Lo, threw
together a Panzer Division to keep the gap at Falaise open.

This refight is representative of many battles fought by the Canadians in France during August 7th--16th, 1944. The present small-scale action hinges on a crossroads near St. Sylain on August 8th. The Canadians, racing for Falaise, get caught by the German counter-stroke. "

[Kingfish]

Tom,

AFAIK, the Poles weren't involved in the night attack on 08/07/44. The two divisions involved in the night attack were the Canadian 2nd infantry and 51st Highland divisions w/ attached armored units.

The Polish 1st armored didn't join the fray until the next day 08/08/44.

As for a scenario depicting the night attack, I can't think of any, but there are two really good ones that depict the actions on the following day, including Wittman's last hour. These scenarios are Franko's 'August bank holiday' and the Desert fox's 'Cintheaux-Totalize'.

Edit: Here is a map of Operation Totalize. Not the best in the world, but it gives you a good idea of who on the allied side was involved and where.
Operation Totalize (http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/westfront/1totalize.htm)

[ May 29, 2002, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[aka_tom_w]

to answer my own question this was the only CMBO scenario I found:
http://142.55.231.199/cmmods/totalize.jpg
http://142.55.231.199/cmmods/source.jpg

Operation Totalize on the morning of Aug 8 after the night assualt.

There is also a Scenario By Rune Somewhere which is his interpretaion of Wittmann's last battle.
Have not found that yet, but I have not looked very hard yet either. smile.gif

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Kingfish:
Tom,

AFAIK, the Poles weren't involved in the night attack on 08/07/44. The two divisions involved in the night attack were the Canadian 2nd infantry and 51st Highland divisions w/ attached armored units.

The Polish 1st armored didn't join the fray until the next day 08/08/44.

As for a scenario depicting the night attack, I can't think of any, but there are two really good ones that depict the actions on the following day, including Wittman's last hour. These scenarios are Franko's 'August bank holiday' and the Desert fox's 'Cintheaux-Totalize'.OK!!

thanks

Any idea what "PNP tagged Tiger" means?

thanks

-tom w

[WWB]

The polish side of this fighting has been done quite well. First, there is a wild bill battle on the CD regarding the actions at les Campeax. I am blanking on the name ATM.

For the fighting on the Mace, Wild Bill has also done a battle called A Rock in the Flood, which is quite interesting.

I also have an unfinished scenario dealing with the German attack on the eastern face of the Mace on August 21 1944. I have pretty much given up on it, but if anyone would like it I can send it out.

WWB

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Kingfish:
Tom,

AFAIK, the Poles weren't involved in the night attack on 08/07/44. The two divisions involved in the night attack were the Canadian 2nd infantry and 51st Highland divisions w/ attached armored units.

The Polish 1st armored didn't join the fray until the next day 08/08/44.

As for a scenario depicting the night attack, I can't think of any, but there are two really good ones that depict the actions on the following day, including Wittman's last hour. These scenarios are Franko's 'August bank holiday' and the Desert fox's 'Cintheaux-Totalize'.

Edit: Here is a map of Operation Totalize. Not the best in the world, but it gives you a good idea of who on the allied side was involved and where.
Operation Totalize (http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/westfront/1totalize.htm)Great Map

Thanks

Reposting it here because it "seems" appropriate:

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/westfront/wfrntmaps/c4p110r.jpg

Thanks

-tom w

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by wwb_99:
The polish side of this fighting has been done quite well. First, there is a wild bill battle on the CD regarding the actions at les Campeax. I am blanking on the name ATM.

Chambois

[Andreas]

Chambois and The Mace are not actually part of TOTALIZE. They happened 10-12 days later, and another operation (TRACTABLE) happened in between. TOTALIZE was sinply the operation to finally break through the German defense in depth on the Caen TO Falaise road, after earlier attempts had ended in failure (e.g. GOODWOOD). TOTALIZE, although not the full success it was supposed to be, certainly was not a failure either. It managed to unhinge the German defense, and showed what would happen, once the armoured force of SS Panzerkorps that had opposed the Commonwealth until then was replaced by infantry divisions. Particular desasters on the Allied side were Worthington Force on Hill 140, and the short bombing that hit 1st Polish Armoured.

As always, no clues about actual happenings during the battles should be taken from Panzermeyer without corroborating evidence from elsewhere ;)

BTW - the 34 Fireflies that Tout talks about (quoted earlier) must be the full compliment of his armoured Brigade. I think 'range' has a fairly loose meaning in his sentence, as in 'if Ekins had not gotten Wittmann, somebody else would have.'

BTW2 - just imagine how well Ekins would have done with superior German optics and the 88 wondergun... ;)

[WWB]

Good points andreas. I knew somehow my dates were not jibing . . .

WWB

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andreas:


BTW2 - just imagine how well Ekins would have done with superior German optics and the 88 wondergun... ;) Are you mocking me smile.gif ????

-tom w

[Andreas]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:


BTW2 - just imagine how well Ekins would have done with superior German optics and the 88 wondergun... ;) Are you mocking me smile.gif ????

-tom w</font>[/QUOTE]What do you think? tongue.gif

[Claus B]

Originally posted by The_Desert_Fox:
Ah, one of my all time favorite topics *GGG*. Kilgore thanks for linking to the pics.[originally it was one pic, but here it is split in two halves]

I apologize, I wasn´t able to resist to reply to the bait. As you can imagine I collected some notes while doing my homework for Cintheaux-Totalize...here is some stuff you might be interested in.....lengthy post following.

-SNIP-
Great post Helge!

I'll save it and use it whenever some - ehhh.... - person starts babbling about Typhoons again :D

Claus B

[Gary T]

Michael,

In response to your original question I believe this is the thread you were looking for - http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007421

Cheers,
Gary.

PS I'll get those GD wehrpass scans to you next week hopefully.

[offtaskagain]

From context, i think that PNP-tagged stuff is a PC work around for SS.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by John D Salt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by P51D:
[qb]Unfair is being called a liar by someone whom i have never met or knows me.
I can find no posting anywhere in this thread where anyone calls you a liar. </font>[/QUOTE]_Another_ characteristic of a good historian is being able to read between the lines.

It's possible P51D was just a friendly guy volunteering info to a game's BB in a very casual manner. Maybe, for example, not realizing that any postings to this board would be subjected to an immediate and not especially polite peer review.

A couple of days of non-insinuation would have given him the chance to cough up some support without feeling like a hunted man. (I do hope you all were _trying_ to sound like there was a faint sneer on your face as you wrote.) Not everyone enjoys posting here so much that they'll do so in spite of numerous insinations of dishonesty.

P51D first posted at 8 am on the 28th, and said it didn't have is "sources" at hand. His last post for that day was only 3 hours later. Maybe he didn't feel like running home and grabbing his books before lunch? He posted next the following day - when the tone had, indeed, turned much less hospitable. (Compare to Andreas's "argue over a drink" post.)

True, P51D was _probably_ a fake. After all, there are more people who "put on airs" than actual, knowledgable professionals. Acting the way you (that's a plural "you") have should, indeed, scare off the posers. It'll also chase away _everyone_ who makes a strong claim but doesn't want to be treated like crap just because they aren't a board regular and have yet to post proof of identity, a resume, and a bibliography, and can't do so within 3 hours of thier first post.

Good show.

[ May 29, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gary T:
Michael,

In response to your original question I believe this is the thread you were looking for - http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007421

Cheers,
Gary.

PS I'll get those GD wehrpass scans to you next week hopefully.Thanks!!! I put up the first two on the site; let me know if you require any changes to be made. Many thanks again.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PawBroon:
[QUOTE]As for the Galant Manfred, I've just read that on that famed day, he just did what he advertized against.
Follow an opponent to his lines.
Either he was overconfident in the fact that he could have downed him before that, or he was just worn out...You're right, of course...we'll never really know.

[Michael Dorosh]

And incidentally, aka_Tom - great digging and info, thanks! To the others as well who contributed in a positive manner to this thread.

I had feared I was going to the well one too many times. And here it is 4 pages later and no one even yelled at me to do a search. (sniff) You guys are the best.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
And incidentally, aka_Tom - great digging and info, thanks! To the others as well who contributed in a positive manner to this thread.

I had feared I was going to the well one too many times. And here it is 4 pages later and no one even yelled at me to do a search. (sniff) You guys are the best.Oh what the Hell ?

I was curious to see what the internet could yeild on this matter and I was PLEASANTLY surprised, to find those two could references and share them here. I was particularily interested to read about the suggestions that some German propaganda, was credited with the lame (fictious) claim that Wittmann was too "God Like" in his reputation to have possibly been KO'd by a Sherm FireFly.

I am now personally convinced the FireFly waiting in the woods at 800 meters nailed him as they were waiting in ambush and got off more than a few rounds before being spottted! (so says the AAR of both the Germans and the British, it would seem)

Glad you like those posts, I spend a few minutes at work today checking into it. smile.gif

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

more here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000993.html

Fionn posts his opinion above that is was Rockets from CAS

and there is even more here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007421

PzKpfw 1
Member
Member # 2242

posted July 18, 2000 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Spook:
[B]Interesting web site, Fivetide. From it is the following quote:

And have any squadron reports from RAF 2nd TAF been submitted to indicate that any of their
planes operated in or near that region at the time of Wittman's demise?

Vau was the source Culver & Fiest used in their Tiger book.

As for the Aircraft theory, from all I have read no TAF or TAC air were operating within 40 miles of the battlefeild, thats been 1
reason why later books om Wittmann Ie, Simpson's book etc, ruled out the aircraft theory.

Regards, John Waters

So... which is it?

I'm still "happier" with the Firefly 17lber shot to the flank explanation myself.

-tom w

[ May 29, 2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PawBroon:
He got killed because he was overconfident.
Same for the Red Baron....This wasn't the case for the Red Baron, and I don't see evidence to support this for Wittman.

The Red Baron was worn out. He got careless. He got suckered in to a low-flying chase over enemy lines, and worst of all, he forgot to check behind him - the first rule of airfighting. His demise was sealed by Australian gunners on the ground, but the fact that he didn't break off once Brown was on the scene kind of indicates, to me, as far as the evidence I've read will take us, that the Baron was simply careless.

He had been fighting far too long, and he never recovered from his head wound.

Or, if you prefer, his luck simply ran out.

If Wittman was bagged at 800 metres by a Firefly, I am not sure how that leads one to the presumption he was overconfident. I would suspect that like Richtofen, he simply ran out of luck - the key ingredient an ace possesses, for if luck is against you, so is everything else.</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, that head wound he got was really nasty. I had to do a role play of him for AP European history senior year, and if IIRC his personality took a real turn after the head shot, not to mention he suffered debilitating headaches too. If I had to say, I'd go along with the thought that he'd just fought too long, seen too much, & shouldn't have been flying after that wound. You can find his online autobiography here:

http://www.richthofen.com/

There's another site out there with great info one his death

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
_Another_ characteristic of a good historian is being able to read between the lines.
Indeed; just as we can easily read between the lines of P-51D's stuff.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

It's possible P51D was just a friendly guy volunteering info to a game's BB in a very casual manner.
I don't know what you consider a "casual manner", but claiming to be a "professional" military historian, and an infallible one at that, doesn't match my idea of "casual".

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
Maybe, for example, not realizing that any postings to this board would be subjected to an immediate and not especially polite peer review.
I wasn't aware of any great tradition among military historians of whining about "peer review". P-51D's treatment by the board was substantially more polite than a lot of academic reviews I've read. If he ostentatiously parades the fact that he has a published paper (although his apparent failure to understand the meaning of "publication" certainly looked odd) on the subject at hand, he has absolutely no grounds for complaint if he is asked to provide a reference to it.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

A couple of days of non-insinuation would have given him the chance to cough up some support without feeling like a hunted man. Maybe, if he needed a couple of days to find his sources, he should have moderated the dogmatic tone of his continued postings, don't you think?

Still, I fail to see why he needed to refer to his references to be able to tell us his name or the name of his company.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

True, P51D was _probably_ a fake.
Indeed, there has to date been no shred of evidence presented against this position -- despite the extreme ease of doing so had it been available.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

[Snips]
It'll also chase away _everyone_ who makes a strong claim but doesn't want to be treated like crap just because they aren't a board regular and have yet to post proof of identity, a resume, and a bibliography, and can't do so within 3 hours of thier first post.
It is not "treating someone like crap" to ask for a reference to a paper of theirs they have brought to your attention. Nor is it "treating someone like crap" to correct errors of fact they have posted. Nobody ever put any time limit on P-51D to post his references, and certainly not one of 3 hours, so that is a strawman argument. Indeed Mike Dorosh made it quite plain that he would welcome their posting at any future date, and I imagine that goes for the rest of us, too.

There's only one person who is responsible for P-51D not posting his claimed references, and that is P-51D himself. He has absolutely no reason to whine about his treatment in this thread; still less do you have any justification for whining on his behalf.

All the best,

John.

(Apologies in advance if something very similar to this pops up at a later date; I can't see the posting I made on the subject last night.)

[Tarquelne]

claiming to be a "professional" military historian, and an infallible one at that, doesn't match my idea of "casual".I'm sorry, I missed the part where he claimed to be infallible. Could you point it out, please?

I wasn't aware of any great tradition among military historians of whining about "peer review". And I'm saying that p-51D probably didn't expect to be met with such suspicion so quickly _here_, the forum for a game. New member, and I supose he believed people wouldn't assume he was a poser if he didn't supply ID and references the same day he posted.

From this new member's perspective, it looked like he was being bullied.


P-51D's treatment by the board was substantially more polite than a lot of academic reviews I've read. That's not saying much.


If he ostentatiously parades ostentatious = infallible?


he has absolutely no grounds for complaint if he is asked to provide a reference to it. Very true - but then there's the _manner_ in which the question is asked. And the manner in which other posters replied to his claims.


Still, I fail to see why he needed to refer to his references to be able to tell us his name or the name of his company.Did anyone ask before he thought the tone turned hostile? Does it matter, if the references are given? No, and no. And some people are still very uncomfortable about giving thier ID over the internet.

Indeed, there has to date been no shred of evidence presented against this position -- despite the extreme ease of doing so had it been available.Yeah, he could of the second day. He left either because:
a) He's a fake.
or
b) He thinks the forum is a shark tank, dominated by an established clique hostile to newcomers, and has other things he'd rather do in his free time.

From the information we have, we can't be certain.

It is not "treating someone like crap" to ask for a reference to a paper of theirs they have brought to your attention. Nor is it "treating someone like crap" to correct errors of fact they have posted.Unless you do so in a snide, hostile manner, correct.


Nobody ever put any time limit on P-51D to post his references, and certainly not one of 3 hours, so that is a strawman argument. I think you missed my point. P-51 first posted at 8 am the first day. His last post on the that day was at 11. _After_ that three hour period the tone became much less friendly. So: It _seems_ that if someone doesn't prove his identity and professional standing in 3 hours, it's assumed he's a fake. Or at least, it's implied he is one. By more than one person, sometimes multiple times.


Indeed Mike Dorosh made it quite plain that he would welcome their posting at any future date, and I imagine that goes for the rest of us, too. It was plain that people wanted the info, yes. Would welcome the info, yes. Would welcome P-51D... by that point I think it was quite reasonable for him to feel unwelcome.

Some people, not having your thick skin, will simply opt out of a discussion if it turns unpleasent. He was probably here as a matter of recreation. Not to, for example, defend himself from multiple attacks on his character.


Maybe, if he needed a couple of days to find his sources, he should have moderated the dogmatic tone of his continued postings, don't you think?
Nope. I don't think he was all that dogmatic. I thought he seemed certain. I can admit that he might have seemed dogmatic to some. I'm betting you can't admit that you (and others) might have seemed to have posted with unjustified hostility. (Unless, of course, you were to add a derogatory qualifier. Ex: "Feeble minded high school students might have found the environment too hostile.")

I didn't particularly like P-51D's tone either, but I didn't think it was so offensive that disparaging remarks were the proper response. Not after just 5 posts, all within a few hours of each other. Remember: My beef isn't that you (and others) "attacked" this guy, it's that you did it so quickly. I find that so offensive to my sense of fair play and desire to see people communicating well that I had to speak out.

This is, in many ways, a WWII history forum, and I understand that you truly care about what is said here. However, it's also a _forum_, and some people truly care about how things are said.

He has absolutely no reason to whine about his treatment in this thread; still less do you have any justification for whining on his behalf.You _really_ don't see how the rections of yourself and others could have been interpreted as hostile? Really? Ok, I'll take your word for it. (See, where you might assume someone is lying to puff themself up, I'll just assume you - much like P-51D - are a poor communicator.)

But I consider the use of the word "whining" when describing my response as hostile, and uncalled for. I think you're merely trying to lable me as a "whiner." Probably the closest someone as polite and mannered as you can bring yourself to an ad hominem attack. My post was accusatory, sure. Presumptious, maybe. Possibly even "wrong." "Whining" - I really don't think so.

If you take nothing else away from this (which seems likely) take this: Next time, give a new probably-fake historian more rope to hang himself. Following some of the references others gave, there does seem to be some evidence for the rocket-attack theory. I would have liked to have seen more of what P-51D had to offer - either to completely discredit him, or learn something new.


Taking your marbles and going home in tears makes you no better than whoever insulted you.I'll attempt to do the mature version of "taking my marbles and going home." by saying this: With my initial post on this subject and this response I've had my say. Any favorable effects that might have resulted from my posts (ie - giving the newbie a chance to get his references) will have been realized, and further words on the subject will certainly be wasted...

Except, maybe, for this summary: Please don't be so hasty.

[ May 30, 2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[P51D]

I would like to thank Tarqulene for his post above which in essence sums up my feelings regarding the way this thread had degenerated while i had been unable to post being at home & asleep.

Thank you Tarqulene.

I refuse to correspond with anyone who insinuates, accuses or alleges any misconduct on my behalf from a few lines of text & whom i have never met or know. I have ,as Tarqulene put it, 'better things to do with my time'. I am used to discussions on a professional basis with fellow professionals who understand how to rationally discuss/analyse theories or arguements.

I, nor any of my collegues, have ever claimed to be infallible on any aspect of history. My casual post, astutley recognised by Tarqulene as such, was made because i saw the topic whilst searching scenario info & recognised the fact that maybe some people weren't aware of the situation regarding the Wittman scenario. Without wanting to sound blase' it is an 'old' subject. As i said previously i was researching him 5+ years ago & a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

I post regularly on various boards (& am a moderator on 1) around the net, including games/sim boards, history boards & the comments made to a new member would not be tolerated om most of them.

I never, ever, use my real identity on the net. I will never provide a personal e-mail address or provide details of the company i run. Our Clients include government agencies & institutes who demand & are given complete anonymity when they request it. The protection of my identity & therefore the security of myself, family & staff is of paramount importance especially during the current global climate.

Tarqulene also stated:

He left either because:
a) He's a fake.
or
b) He thinks the forum is a shark tank, dominated by an established clique hostile to newcomers, and has other things he'd rather do in his free time.

B is correct. I have joined other forums b4, such as SimHQ & discovered the same so my attitude is 'why should i bother'. I have better things to do. Maybe this forum is different, i hope so as i thoroughly enjoy CMBO as a game.

I have never posted here with the intention of upsetting anyone & neither did i post anything of a vindictive nature aimed at anyone. I was merely attempting to help some people. Now i can't really be bothered.

I fail to understand how 'tone' can be interpreted from the typed word. I do not read anything & perceive a condescending tone as i am not listening to the tone of someones voice or witnessing their body language.

Now, we come to the alleged publication of my paper. I am in my late 30's & since i began in this profession i have published 48 papers, theses, diseratations, reports. Only 5 of them have been summated into the mainstream media.
The rest have appeared in complete or more commonly in abrdidged form in: Janes: Defence Weekly, Intel Review, NATO Defence Forum,
ISS Forum, Intel Digest & The Sandhurst Gazette.
None of which, to my knowledge, are published in the public domain.

They have covered topics ranging from the use of animals in the trenches during the Somme to the use of Hannibals tactics during the Gulf War.
A 'paper' can differ in size from 2 pages of typed A4 to 500 pages of professionally printed & hardback bound book. The paper i referred to contains 1 chapter specific to his demise whilst the other 5 chapters dealt with the SS Heavy Tank Battalions in Normandy.
It appeared in an abridged version in the NATO Forum in the late 90's. More specific than that i will not be.

I think a degree of misunderstanding exists about the role of a military historian. Our profession provides data to whoever requests it for numerous reasons but generally to understand & predict future conflicts & wars, not solely to pick over the bones of old battles. I would estimate that only 20% of my Client base is academic based for the 'what if' scenarios.

I have posted today to thank Tarqulene for understanding my feelings on this & to pick up on the points he picked out & quoted on.
This does not alter my attitude to the references requested. I don't particularly care.

I not interested in entering into another slanging match regarding Wittman & the candlestick in the parlour. At the end of the day what does it matter.

And finally we come to my maturity or lack thereof
that someone questioned. As i said i am inmy late 30's. My staff range in ages from 17 yr old secterial student to a retired Lt Col in his early 60's.
Our staff room has a snooker table, table football, TV, DVD & video. We will watch & laugh at: Simpsons, Frasier, ER, Manchild, The Clangers, The Wombles, Tom & Jerry (my fav!!) & we all love Bagpuss. We are practically closing the place down for the World Cup because we love football & we also have our own football team. No we are not a bunch of crusty old goats in smoking jackets & slippers. We are young(ish) guys & gals who enjoy some fun & lots of booze, regularly. But we all work hard & enjoy what we do.

Regards

Ed

Thats all folks!!

[aka_tom_w]

Ya-but.......

how did Wittmann die?

Poor taste and bad manners aside lets focus on the issue here.

I would like to be directed to references in scholarly journals that actually conclude that Rockets from Close Air Support knocked out Wittmann's Tiger. There seem to be more than a few references in this thread that indicate no CAS was flown within 40 miles of the place where the Tigers were KO'd on that Aug day in 1944.

-tom w

[P51D]

It was Colonel Mustard flying a winged Sherman Firefly Calliope hybrid at 2000ft above the Parlour & holding the lead pipe. He hit Wittman with one 17pounder APDS shot at 40000yds then blew the rest of him to pieces with all his 60lb rockets at a range of 2 feet.

Ed

[P51D]

Actually, joking & the flying sherman aside, that isn't so daft an idea.

Ekins hits & wipes out Wittman from the side. Impact high up towards the top of the hull where the later internal hull explosion obliterates the strike evidence.
Tyffies later spot the Tigers in the open & as there is no smoke & fire to indicate they out of action attack & hit with rockets that cause the explosion.
An APDS hit will not necessarliy cause fire & explosion. Interesting hypothesis.

Ed

[Tarquelne]

Paranthetical remarks:

(Yes, yes, I noticed that P-51 didn't offer proof of any sort - a total fraud could have written the same thing. (As could an honestly offended person who wrote in good faith.) No need to point this out to me.)

(P-51D: If you want to do me a favor, offer an answer to aka_tom_w's question. Ah... and _not_ like the one you just gave. c'mon, I don't regret asking for more tolerance/less haste - but don't make me regret that it was done in defense of you.)

Edit: (Another response: OK, well, better than the first one...)

[ May 30, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Brian]

I'm sorry, P51D but I see your comments as being quite a cop out. I don't necessarily believe that John has been particularly nasty either. He's in fact quite a gentleman, compared to some of the other piranha which inhabit this pool.

Your desire for anonymity notwithstanding but you have thrown your hat into the ring, making particular claims. Many would like to verify those claims as they do not necessarily gel with what is the accepted demise of Wittman.

Personally, I don't give a toss who killed him - he died as others have suggested, because his luck simply ran out and no matter how smart or good a tank commander he was, he didn't dodge the shell or rocket which killed him in his Tiger. In the long run, his antics weren't going to win the war for the Germans, no matter how good he was.

However, if you are the historian you claim to be, you'd realise that references are what historians live and die by, professionally. Refusal to provide them merely renders your comments personal opinion, nothing more.

Further, I somehow doubt our knowing your name and having a reference to a paper which was given at a public history conference is going to mark you or your "company" out for special attention by Al'Quada mad terrorists. :rolleyes:

[ May 30, 2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
I'm sorry, I missed the part where he claimed to be infallible. Could you point it out, please?
But of course. "I knew they were wrong because as professionals we know they are wrong. That is why my company is in existence. We cannot deal with facts that are incorrect because we would be unemployed."

Now, it is not my habit to complain about the "tone" of postings, so I leave it to people to make their own minds up about the "tone" of this little extract. However, the claim that he deals only in "correct facts" logically requires an infallible ability to tell truth from falsity. Not even the Pope now claims as much; and no academic worth the name would make such a fatuous boast.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

From this new member's perspective, it looked like he was being bullied.
If you're going to start flinging accusations of "bullying" around, I think I'd like you to quote specific instances, please.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
P-51D's treatment by the board was substantially more polite than a lot of academic reviews I've read. That's not saying much.
</font>[/QUOTE]This is true. smile.gif

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
If he ostentatiously parades ostentatious = infallible?
</font>[/QUOTE]No. Being such a poor communicator myself, I tend to use the word "ostentatious" only to mean "ostentatious", not to mean "infallible".

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
he has absolutely no grounds for complaint if he is asked to provide a reference to it. Very true - but then there's the _manner_ in which the question is asked. And the manner in which other posters replied to his claims.
</font>[/QUOTE]Again, I'll have to ask for specific examples of what you're objecting to.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
[Snips]
And some people are still very uncomfortable about giving thier ID over the internet.
If that is the case, then one might think it remarkably foolish of him to make such a big thing of the paper he claims to have published.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
[Snips]
He left either because:
a) He's a fake.
or
b) He thinks the forum is a shark tank, dominated by an established clique hostile to newcomers, and has other things he'd rather do in his free time.

From the information we have, we can't be certain.
I am all in favour of a Montaigne-like suspension of judgement, and a willingness always to reconsider in the light of new discoveries. However, it does not follow that one must abandon any attempt at judgement on the basis of the information we have so far -- all of which seems to point only one way.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
[Snips] I think you missed my point. P-51 first posted at 8 am the first day. His last post on the that day was at 11. _After_ that three hour period the tone became much less friendly. So: It _seems_ that if someone doesn't prove his identity and professional standing in 3 hours, it's assumed he's a fake. Or at least, it's implied he is one. By more than one person, sometimes multiple times.
Yet, remarkably, despite this delicate little flower's umbrage at the naughty rough boys in the forum suggesting he might not be all he seemed, he manfully resists the temptation to give himself the low satisfaction of proving them all wrong by posting the references he alluded to. Do you really find that believable? If so, how many bridges do you find yourself buying in the average year?

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
[Snips]
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Maybe, if he needed a couple of days to find his sources, he should have moderated the dogmatic tone of his continued postings, don't you think?
Nope. I don't think he was all that dogmatic. I thought he seemed certain. I can admit that he might have seemed dogmatic to some.
</font>[/QUOTE]OK, so he made great play of his "professional" status, claimed never to deal in "untrue facts", expressed amazement that people like Dr. Ken Tout and Gen. Mike Reynolds (who are not, apparently, part of the "Military History family") could be so foolish as to be unaware of the definitive results of research he oddly never did post a reference to, yet he contrived to do so without being "dogmatic". You really believe that?

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

I'm betting you can't admit that you (and others) might have seemed to have posted with unjustified hostility. (Unless, of course, you were to add a derogatory qualifier. Ex: "Feeble minded high school students might have found the environment too hostile.")
I might be prepared to admit as much if you could furnish me with any evidence that it was so...

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

[Snips]Remember: My beef isn't that you (and others) "attacked" this guy, it's that you did it so quickly. I find that so offensive to my sense of fair play and desire to see people communicating well that I had to speak out.
...for example, by indicating which passages you took to be "attacks".

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

You _really_ don't see how the rections of yourself and others could have been interpreted as hostile? Really? Ok, I'll take your word for it. (See, where you might assume someone is lying to puff themself up, I'll just assume you - much like P-51D - are a poor communicator.)
So please post examples of where you consider I've been unjustifiably "hostile".

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

But I consider the use of the word "whining" when describing my response as hostile, and uncalled for.
In which case, please allow me to withdraw it and replace it with "complain". Presumably you do not deny that you are complaining?

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Probably the closest someone as polite and mannered as you can bring yourself to an ad hominem attack.
"Polite"? "Mannered"? I confess that it's not often I get accused of being either of those.


(This bit was not originally posted by me -- JDS}
Taking your marbles and going home in tears makes you no better than whoever insulted you.I'll attempt to do the mature version of "taking my marbles and going home." by saying this: With my initial post on this subject and this response I've had my say. Any favorable effects that might have resulted from my posts (ie - giving the newbie a chance to get his references) will have been realized, and further words on the subject will certainly be wasted...
[Snips]
[/QB][/QUOTE]

I think if you're going to accuse people of "bullying", it's only fair that you justify that accusation when asked to.

As is apparently the case with so many things, though, your opinion may well be different from mine.

All the best,

John.

[P51D]

Brian

Re-read my intial posts regarding the circumstances of the original paper. To repeat agian. It wasn't at a public presentation. And who mentioned Al-Quieda. But i don't care anyway.

And to repeat yet again. I don't care if it seems a cop out. I can't be bothered.

[jgdpzr]

Wow, quite a pi**ing match this devolved into. P51D, really, all we are asking for are the references to the sources that you claim make clear Wittman's demise. I know the tone of some of the posts may not have been friendly, but surely you can understand that most here are simply skeptical of claims we cannot substantiate. I don't think the perceived personal attacks were intentional. We simply want to know what you know, and surely, as an historian, you can understand that we're not inclined to simply take an anonymous person's opinion on some game board as gospel. Our skepticism is not personal, however.
We have documented interviews of people (both Allied and German) claiming to have witnessed Wittman's tank being knocked out by a 17 pounder from a firefly. These accounts exist, that much we KNOW. AFAIK (hence my plea for your sources), the Typhoon theory is based primarily on the examination of the vehicle in the field and the damage it sustained. As others have noted, what is lacking is corroborative evidence of CAS activity in the area. I, and most others here, really would just like to see what evidence supports the Typhoon attack, that is all. Since you say that it is now essentially a foregone conclusion in your circles, we amatuers don't want to be left behind. Please, enlighten us. That is a sincere request, not sarcastic in the least.

[Tarquelne]

his antics were going to win the war for the Germans, no matter how good he was.
(I'll assume there's a typo in there.)

I was suprised that the Nazi's didn't produce more war heroes, for propaganda purposes. Or did they, and I've just never heard of them because the fakes were quickly exposed and just not talked about after the war?

I don't find it at all strage that some are concerned about just how MW met his end. Some people find his story interesting, and want to know how it ended. No novelist would end the story "... or maybe a rocket from a Typhoon. Possibly."

particularly nasty either. He's in fact quite a gentleman, compared to some of the other piranha which inhabit this pool._Particularly_ nasty? Other piranha? I apologize if I gave the impression that any alledged "bullying" here is the worst I've ever seen. ;) I guess I just had higher expectations.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
particularly nasty either. He's in fact quite a gentleman, compared to some of the other piranha which inhabit this pool._Particularly_ nasty? Other piranha? I apologize if I gave the impression that any alledged "bullying" here is the worst I've ever seen. ;) I guess I just had higher expectations.Silly you. ;)

[Michael Dorosh]

Ugh; guys do we really need to indulge our new friend any longer? He's got nothing to offer us - continuing to respond just keeps him in the spotlight, which he apparently craves. If he "can't be bothered" why should we?

My two cents, anyway.

Good questions aka_Tom, but I guess it wasn't to be. Our new friend still hasn't demonstrated any deeper understanding of the subject at hand.

As for "shark tank" - I don't get that at all. I've seen a lot of heavily critical thinking by a lot of learned people on this board. I've also seen many of them slip into flame mode on occasion when tempers ran high, myself naturally included. But I've always walked away from discussions with

a) the knowledge that I have learned something
b) an understanding and reminded that no matter what you are talking about, there is always more than one viewpoint, and always someone else who knows something more/different than you about anything you care to name

I've also realized this board is no place for mewling self-important intellectual lightweights, and we have had our share of those, haven't we. They usually do us the favour of conglomerating their sentences into a single paragraph, though...

Many of the good contributors have been intimidated initially, but they usually find themselves fittnig right in. Doubtless many have been "scared off" as T has intimated, but the place isn't everyone's cup of tea, nor is it the only place to discuss historical issues.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
his antics were going to win the war for the Germans, no matter how good he was.
(I'll assume there's a typo in there.)

I was suprised that the Nazi's didn't produce more war heroes, for propaganda purposes. Or did they, and I've just never heard of them because the fakes were quickly exposed and just not talked about after the war?</font>[/QUOTE]Don't take this the wrong way, but more than what? They had plenty; from Rudel down the list. Colour photos in Signal magazine and newspaper articles routinely highlighted their Knight's Cross winners and stories of bravery. I don't suppose that's always apparent looking at secondary sources decades later (that's not a personal slam on you, incidentally, more a confession of my own).

Perhaps you mean "legends" as opposed to mere "heroes"? I think if we were able to examine primary sources, that they probably had their fair share.

Otto Kretschmer
Hans-Ulrich Rudel
Michael Wittman
Otto Skorzeny
Erwin Rommel

Come most immediately to mind. I'll leave Guy Sajer off the list for now....

But I am no expert on propaganda. Bear in mind the National Socialist outlook was sometimes one of equality between the classes, yet they had this desire to elevate both war heroes, and party officials and government figures, above the rest. I have no doubt the entire question is a lot more complicated than that, and creation of heroes/legends was something they no doubt gave a lot of thought and attention to. Lord knows they wasted enough time on snappy uniforms and other ephemera.

Other considerations - they were probably concerned about raising the importance of the military, when after the war it was hoped to replace them with loyal SS men. Most societies wrestle with those kinds of questions - how much do you want your people worshipping the military,and how dangerous does that make them to your own political power?

Stuff like that.

[ May 30, 2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Joe Shaw]

This guy really reminds me of our old friend Iron Chef Sakai ... right down to the attitude and lower case "i". Of course I have all my reference material at home and can't verify that ... oh wait, I am at home.

Joe

[ May 30, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Joe Shaw ]

[K_Tiger]

If some US or other ally`s hade such scores Tank/Air ect...we would have nothing to discuss here..i think.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:
If some US or other ally`s hade such scores Tank/Air ect...we would have nothing to discuss here..i think.I disagree with that - the Germans simply operated in a target rich environment. ;) Their aces all served in Russia; as Wittman showed, the odds were a bit more even in the briefer campaigns in the west.

Oh, on further reflection, I wanted to add my definition of "intellectual" to my other post. Intellectualism isn't about what you know - it's about how you discuss (share) it with others that counts.

[Ace Pilot]

There’s a phrase in aviation circles used to describe phony logbook hours. It’s called P-51 time. I think the phrase dates back to the 1940s and comes from the instrument used to record these bogus entries – the Parker 51 pen.

Just thought I'd share.

Ace

[Enoch]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Oh, on further reflection, I wanted to add my definition of "intellectual" to my other post. Intellectualism isn't about what you know - it's about how you discuss (share) it with others that counts.I learned everything I needed to know about sharing in kindergarten. Perhaps some folks need to repeat that grade?

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Enoch:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Oh, on further reflection, I wanted to add my definition of "intellectual" to my other post. Intellectualism isn't about what you know - it's about how you discuss (share) it with others that counts.I learned everything I needed to know about sharing in kindergarten. Perhaps some folks need to repeat that grade?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know, I tend to agree with Alex Keaton of Family Ties when he saw his little brother sporting a sign from Kindergarten that said "I Know How To Share!" Alex's remark was, "What is this, the Karl Marx Kindergarten?" The next day his little brother had a sign that said "I Know What's MINE!"

As far as Wittman is concerned I think them thar Alien Space Critters done it, prove me wrong!

Joe

[Tarquelne]

"Doubtless many have been "scared off" as T has intimated"

Ok, in deference to this being MD's thread, which I've done more than my share in helping to pull OT, and because that's twice he's somehow supported something I've said ;) , I'm editing this post into a reply to his message, rather than JS's.

Propaganda:


Perhaps you mean "legends" as opposed to mere "heroes"?
Yes.

I guess what I was getting at is that I'm suprised they didn't exploit them more than they did - even to the point of manufacturing extra legends.

I'd overlooked the problem of the SS vrs. the army, and the party vrs. the army. I think that goes a long way toward explaining any lack of exploitation.

[ May 30, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by P51D:
I am used to discussions on a professional basis with fellow professionals who understand how to rationally discuss/analyse theories or arguements.This is welcome news.

Originally posted by P51D:
[Snips]
I never, ever, use my real identity on the net. I will never provide a personal e-mail address or provide details of the company i run. Our Clients include government agencies & institutes who demand & are given complete anonymity when they request it. The protection of my identity & therefore the security of myself, family & staff is of paramount importance especially during the current global climate.
You are to be congratulated on the exemplary stringency of your security precautions. They appear to be very much more stringent than those in force with organisations such as QinetiQ, DSTL or RMCS.

Originally posted by P51D:

[Snips]
I have never posted here with the intention of upsetting anyone & neither did i post anything of a vindictive nature aimed at anyone. I was merely attempting to help some people. Now i can't really be bothered.
Not even so much as a squadron number? That can't compromise anyone's security, can it? That information doesn't carry a protective marking, does it?

Originally posted by P51D:

[Snips]
The rest have appeared in complete or more commonly in abrdidged form in: Janes: Defence Weekly, Intel Review, NATO Defence Forum,
ISS Forum, Intel Digest & The Sandhurst Gazette.
None of which, to my knowledge, are published in the public domain.
JDW had no protective marking last time I saw it, it was just bl**dy expensive.

I don't know what the status of the Swedish conference you allude to was, but if it carried a protective marking, you should -- with all your attention to security and all -- know better than to refer to it in a public forum.

Originally posted by P51D:

They have covered topics ranging from the use of animals in the trenches during the Somme to the use of Hannibals tactics during the Gulf War.
"The use of Hannibal's tactics during the Gulf War"? Come on, you've got to give us a reference to that!

Originally posted by P51D:

I think a degree of misunderstanding exists about the role of a military historian.
Tell me, do you know Dave Rowlands?

All the best,

John.

[Dirtweasle]

The only thing to be afraid of is making statements that beg verification and validation, and then decline to provide...

It's one thing to post a note that posits position "X" as something to consider, and quite another to claim that in learned circles it is common knowledge but decide it is not worth the effort to provide the back up. To say that "all of us professionals" in some field know that the great unwashed are mistaken but cannot be troubled to explain why, with credible sources, is a form of intellectual elitism that is rather a bitter pill.

That is of course if you take P-51 at face value.... the other conclusion to be drawn (in my opinion) is that he is a phony.

[ May 30, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Dirtweasle ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by John D Salt:
"The use of Hannibal's tactics during the Gulf War"? Come on, you've got to give us a reference to that!I think that's just a fancy way to talk about Cannae...

FWIW, I dont' think that this forum is a "shark tank." The forum is, however, full of people who are easily capable of understanding and digesting scholarly military history. Several people here have scholarly publications of their own in the field of military history. I'm not a military historian, but I have worked as an editor of a (non-military) scholarly journal, and I have my own (non-military) publication in a scholarly journal. So I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand scholarly material, even if it's in a different field than mine. And I have much less knowledge of WWII military history than many people on this forum, most of whom, by the way, are also in their mid-30's.

Given the background of many people on this forum, it's no wonder that P-51D's posts came off as vaguely insulting, with its intimation that people here did not understand either military history or the concept of journals not in the public domain. I don't think that P-51D intended to be insulting, though; I think he wanted to be helpful. Unfortunately, though, his later postings (in response to particular questions)did across as somewhat insulting, particularly with his "argument from authority." But once again, I don't think that was his intent.

I will also point out that straight military history is not the only lens through which the Wittmann question can be viewed. I'm not a forensic pathologist (although I am CPR certified smile.gif ), but I have worked professionally on more than 100 murders (murder cases, not the actual murders), and so I'm somewhat familiar with how the cause of death is determined. My first thought when reading about the condition of Wittmann's body was that the fact that it may have been burned by a Typhoon strike did not mean that the death was caused by a Typhoon strike.

So there may be some value in a straight forensic approach. (Although it can be hard to determine the cause of death after several weeks, in some cases, so 60 years may be too far out). It's also likely that no detailed forensic analysis was done - Wittmann wasn't murdered, and most people don't have a burning interest in knowing who killed him. Present company excepted, of course. tongue.gif

[Michael Dorosh]

I wish I was at home and not posting on the sly from work, this is getting to be quite good and I wish I had more time to digest all this. Quickly, though, excellent post Andrew (and others) - yes, there are many lenses through which military history topics can be viewed.

One of Canada's leading "military" authors is actually a labour historian, and not a soldier. It does show, sometimes, but at other times he is able to write quite brilliantly, perceptively and dispassionately from a unique perspective. It really does take all kinds.

[Måkjager]

Did some digging and found this on the After The Battle web site.

Issue No. 48
GERMANY SURRENDERS Surrender of Gruppe Elster; Unconditional Surrender; Caserta, Italy; Lüneburg, Germany; Innsbruck, Austria; Baldham, Germany; Wageningen, Netherlands; Reims, France; Berlin, Germany; The Channel Islands; Lorient, France; St Nazaire, France; Dunkirk, France. It Happened Here - Michael Wittmann's Last Battle.
£3.10**CODE A048

I have sent a email to the company asking about the possability of ordering the magazine .

Regards

Måkjager

ps...AFAIK this magazine was published sometime around 1984/85.
Below is i hope alink to the web site for anybody who wishes to try get hold of a copy of this magazine
web page (http://www.afterthebattle.com/contact.htm)

[ May 30, 2002, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Måkjager ]

[Kiltie Lad]

This has been a truely entertaining thread and has exhibited the very best of what this forum is all about. It started with a very interesting question, which I wanted to learn more about, and which I did learn more about by following links and reading the various postings of quite erudite gentlemen who had no problem providing evidence from various sources. Then P51 shows up and immediately made this historian's (MSc) teeth set on edge. While one likes to be kind and gracious, especially to new posters, one must expect the gentle requests for further clarification of source material to be met with a polite, "hold on and I'll get it for you when I'm able." Instead P51 raises his hackles and deliberately eludes these requests. My eyebrows raised too at this time. I've never heard of a research organization being so secretive, well, maybe the CIA, but I gather this organization isn't any CIA. I wanted to be kind, and never thought to call the guy a fake, but I expected with each click to see his source material laid out neatly, which would make his bold assertions about being so in-the-know plausible. Nada. Well, chippie, any learned professional such as yourself should certainly know that bold assertions as to the historic record require bold back up. And you didn't provide it. Say what you will about all the important organizations you serve, but to these ears it simply rings hollow. Not willing to provide your evidence, but only to impugne the integrity of those who politely at first, and then, understandably, a bit more zealously later, requested that you back up your claims, smacks of elitism. And elitism, dear sir, will earn you nothing on this board.

Warfare is a big, messy business. I believe that it is next to impossible to make sense out of individual incidents in the cacophany of battle. The fact that this one tank may have been struck by shells and rockets is completely plausible. Supporting what one thinks by recounting the information that led one to believe what one does believe exhibits the very best in communication skills.

Bravo to the Forum! Bravo to the members who have made this one of the most informative posts in a long time. Vivre la Difference! Debate is good. Providing supporting documentation for your debating point is even better.

Cheers All!
Shawn David McCaslin
Alexandria, Virginia
Seamus660@AOL (and I ain't afraid)

[gunnersman]

Jerry Springer, EAT YOUR HEART OUT! :D

[Sir Uber General]

I concur with Kiltie, I keep clicking here waiting for P51D to lay out his evidence.

I find it remarkable that someone would claim to come from an organisation so secretive that you cant even mention their name... then claim to come from such an organistion in a public forum.

Can the board admins please post P51D's posting IP's - he might be doing this from work and we can crack his big secret. LOL!

[bboyle]

Originally posted by P51D:
Brian

Re-read my intial posts regarding the circumstances of the original paper. To repeat agian. It wasn't at a public presentation. And who mentioned Al-Quieda. But i don't care anyway.

And to repeat yet again. I don't care if it seems a cop out. I can't be bothered.Anyone else think we are at the 'don't feed the troll' point yet??

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by bboyle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by P51D:
Brian

Re-read my intial posts regarding the circumstances of the original paper. To repeat agian. It wasn't at a public presentation. And who mentioned Al-Quieda. But i don't care anyway.

And to repeat yet again. I don't care if it seems a cop out. I can't be bothered.Anyone else think we are at the 'don't feed the troll' point yet??</font>[/QUOTE]yes - hence my plea beginning with "ugh"!!!

So, let's stop feeding him. When are you changing your sig to include Madmatt's quote? It is the new fashion in messageboards this year.

EDIT - I just reread the first three or four pages of this thread. At no point did I see P51 branded a liar, and at no point did I see anyone treat him with hostility, up until the point he declared he was being mistreated. Even then, things seemed pretty even handed. I wisely retracted my "take your article and stick it as far up your ass as it will go" comments before committing them to the ether.

What strange people we attract!

On the other hand, during my revisit, I was reminded, of Viceroy's helpful post, hitler's underpants' post about his relatives' photo collection, and a lot of other good info by far too many posters to mention individually by name. It also took me the second reading to "get" John Salt's satiric court room references. (What can I say, I am slow).

Maybe it is time to lock this one up?

[ May 30, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
[QUOTE]Maybe it is time to lock this one up?Nein, mein grognard! Too much fun :D

[Durbish]

You guys rock!

When I first came here I thought I was the master but now I am the student :cool:

directed at T I think the community was originally receptive to another possible well of knowledge, it wasn't until our esteemed historian had about 1/2 his shoe in his mouth did it start to get ugly IMO

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bboyle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by P51D:
Brian

Re-read my intial posts regarding the circumstances of the original paper. To repeat agian. It wasn't at a public presentation. And who mentioned Al-Quieda. But i don't care anyway.

And to repeat yet again. I don't care if it seems a cop out. I can't be bothered.Anyone else think we are at the 'don't feed the troll' point yet??</font>[/QUOTE]yes - hence my plea beginning with "ugh"!!!

So, let's stop feeding him. When are you changing your sig to include Madmatt's quote? It is the new fashion in messageboards this year.

EDIT - I just reread the first three or four pages of this thread. At no point did I see P51 branded a liar, and at no point did I see anyone treat him with hostility, up until the point he declared he was being mistreated. Even then, things seemed pretty even handed. I wisely retracted my "take your article and stick it as far up your ass as it will go" comments before committing them to the ether.

What strange people we attract!

On the other hand, during my revisit, I was reminded, of Viceroy's helpful post, hitler's underpants' post about his relatives' photo collection, and a lot of other good info by far too many posters to mention individually by name. It also took me the second reading to "get" John Salt's satiric court room references. (What can I say, I am slow).

Maybe it is time to lock this one up?</font>[/QUOTE]BTW, the small business I work for in the summer got 100 free email accounts from their host, and I'm getting hooked up with one. Hopefully it will be soon and I'll actually be able to send files smile.gif

[Brian]

Originally posted by P51D:
Brian

Re-read my intial posts regarding the circumstances of the original paper. To repeat agian. It wasn't at a public presentation. And who mentioned Al-Quieda. But i don't care anyway.
P51D, you made the claim you had presented a paper on this topic at a "conference in Stockholm". You did not state whether it was a private or a public function. I assumed that it was a public function as I cannot believe too many closed functions would be that interested in a minor historical note from over 50 years ago. You later amended your original comment to "at a forum in Sweden some years ago attended by military personnel & historians." Again, I somehow doubt it would have been of such interest to serving personnel that they would have slapped a security rating on it, particularly as you then went onto claim that, "My paper was not unpublished. It was published in the journals that we use everyday to keep in touch with research projects around the world in much the same way that medical journals are produced to inform those in the medical profession of health related news." Which tends to indicate that I don't have to dust off my security clearance to see a copy of it, P51D.

As to the matter of Al'Quada, I admit I provided a name when you attempted to suggest, rather increduliously that this matter was so important as to be vital to, "The protection of my identity & therefore the security of myself, family & staff ...especially during the current global climate." I still believe that is merely a convenient smokescreen, P51D.


And to repeat yet again. I don't care if it seems a cop out. I can't be bothered.Then you must realise you have no credibility here and belong along with other denizens who live beneath bridges. I believe this web page (http://www.uwsp.edu/education/wkirby/seattle/troll.htm) is devoted to you.

[ May 31, 2002, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Tarquelne]

Ok, fine:

EDIT - I just reread the first three or four pages of this thread. At no point did I see P51 branded a liar, and at no point did I see anyone treat him with hostility, up until the point he declared he was being mistreated. He wasn't "branded a liar"... but there were a number of posts containing statements implying that he was a liar and a fake - generally through the tone. (How many times does someone need to read "Suspicious minds might" or the equivilent before taking it as an accusation? Maybe all of you have had your irony bones removed - if so, it should be in the forum's FAQ.) Considering the timing, I consider that "hostile". At the very least, it's rude.

None of you find anything rude, hostile or accusatory in the early thread's tone toward P-51D? Well - so far the highest member #'s I've seen in this thread are mine and P-51Ds. (The next highest is Salt's... make what you will of that.) So maybe you'll accept this: To a newbie, too many people sounded rude, hostile and accusatory to P-51D before he had a chance to give whatever references he was willing to give.

If none of you meant to give the impression you thought he was a poser before P-51D's second day, from where I'm sitting you simply failed.

But this, for me, is the heart of the issue:


Doubtless many (good contributors) have been "scared off" There's no need for that. Show some restraint. Not forever - how about 6 posts or 24 hours, whichever comes first?

Or, alternatively, if you don't like someone's tone don't be coy - go ahead and react with hostility! Employ sarcasm, veild accusations and strident demands to drive 'em off - just don't deny that your posts were nothing but sweetness and light afterword.

[Tarquelne]

I think the community was originally receptive to another possible well of knowledge, it wasn't until our esteemed historian had about 1/2 his shoe in his mouth did it start to get ugly IMOI can agree with that statement. I'd just think people should wait for the shoe to be fully inserted.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

[/QUOTE]I can agree with that statement. I'd just think people should wait for the shoe to be fully inserted.[/QB][/QUOTE]

How true. LOL.

Some people have more patience than others, i also would have given a little more time to give P51 the benefit of the doubt and hear what he had to say. After that smithers could "Release the hounds" if needed.

I do hope he will come back simply because i am interested to see what other information lies out there. This board is a wealth of knowledge, and some truly great guys live here. But sometimes patience can be a virtue.

Best wishes

CDIC

[Sitting Duck]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
Ok, fine:

...To a newbie, too many people sounded rude, hostile and accusatory to P-51D before he had a chance to give whatever references he was willing to give.

If none of you meant to give the impression you thought he was a poser before P-51D's second day, from where I'm sitting you simply failed...
I agree, Tarqulene. As the thread began, I was really hoping to learn something concrete, something new. Then, I saw the loaded words slipping into the replies and I just knew that was it. Game Over...

Lots of sharp minds and wits on this board. Why not use that sharpness to cut a little slack at first? :rolleyes:

Best,

Sitting Duck

[GenSplatton]

I'll admit that I don't post a bunch here, mostly because I'm not a grog and really do suck at CM so have little to add. But, if you look at the "I'm not coming back" comments followed by post after post by this fellow, and read the aloof responses about the company he doesn't work for and the paper he never published and still believe this guy is anything but a troll, I truly feel for your cognative abilities. This is about a classic case of trolling as you will ever find.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
[QB]He wasn't "branded a liar"... but there were a number of posts containing statements implying that he was a liar and a fake - generally through the tone. (How many times does someone need to read "Suspicious minds might" or the equivilent before taking it as an accusation? In all honesty and being completely genuine, I saw it as a gentle reminder from one learned historian to another, pure and simple. I sincerely see no accusation in it, and I am truly of the opinion that only someone hypersensitive would see it that way in the absence of any other similar comments - or someone with something to hide. Either way, if you can't take the heat...

None of you find anything rude, hostile or accusatory in the early thread's tone toward P-51D? Well - so far the highest member #'s I've seen in this thread are mine and P-51Ds. (The next highest is Salt's... make what you will of that.) So maybe you'll accept this: To a newbie, too many people sounded rude, hostile and accusatory to P-51D before he had a chance to give whatever references he was willing to give.Historical debate is all about challenge; someone presents a thesis and automatically someone else - if he is worth his "salt" (sorry) - will immediately react in the predictable manner; by asking him to back it up. Why this would be offensive is beyong me.

Even if P51D WAS branded a liar - so what? Pretty easy to resolve that one. Either present your case, or decide it is not worth your time and leave. The continued posting and bragging about the company snooker table defies common logic, or at least my perception of common logic.

I don't understand why you are making reference to member numbers, though, maybe you can explain?

Captain Wacky - hotmail sucks, but I guess you go with what you've got. Get a good zipping program, I think that will solve some of the hotmail issues associated with sending files via that particular medium.

[rune]

For those interested, a possibility of Wittman's Death is in Wittman's Last Hour. It is available at Scenario Depot or you can send me an email and I will respond. This was done on the pictures seen earlier and on some maps I have, and yes, the terrain WAS that bare. The road I have a picture of [from the grave site] did NOT have a hedgerow. I included the tanks in the account, as well as an aircraft. Just a possibility of how he died.

Rune

[Michael Dorosh]

rune - do you have any time for PBEM these days? Would love to take you on in Wittman's Last Hour if you want to send me a setup...

[JonS]

Originally posted by Måkjager:
Did some digging and found this on the After The Battle web site.

Issue No. 48
GERMANY SURRENDERS Surrender of Gruppe Elster; Unconditional Surrender; Caserta, Italy; Lüneburg, Germany; Innsbruck, Austria; Baldham, Germany; Wageningen, Netherlands; Reims, France; Berlin, Germany; The Channel Islands; Lorient, France; St Nazaire, France; Dunkirk, France. It Happened Here - Michael Wittmann's Last Battle.
£3.10**CODE A048

I have sent a email to the company asking about the possability of ordering the magazine .

Regards

Måkjager

ps...AFAIK this magazine was published sometime around 1984/85.
Below is i hope alink to the web site for anybody who wishes to try get hold of a copy of this magazine
web page (http://www.afterthebattle.com/contact.htm) I wonder if Måkjager ever got a reply to his email?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kingfish:
Last night I held a séance at my house and the spirit of Michael Wittman was called on. He appeared as a soft blue glow hovering over the dining room table. Over the course of the evening he floated around the room answering questions, stopping only briefly to snag a beer from the fridge.

He talked at great length about the Stug and Tiger, German tactics in general and his exploits at Villers-Bocage (talk about an AAR!). Finally, the question was raised about how he died on 8/8/44. For a while there was silence, then he took a long pull of beer, placed the empty bottle on the table and said ‘That &$%#@! Englishman in the orchard, Damn him to Hell!” followed by another long period of silence. We decided not to pursue it any further, and that’s where the matter ended.

He stuck around for a little while longer, and I even managed to persuade him to a hotseat game of, you guessed it, Villers-Bocage. He had a blast, yelling in German whenever his Tiger would score a kill (needless to say I was getting my ass handed to me. After all, he knows this scenario like that back of his hand). His only complaint was the need to plot all those waypoints just to move vehicles down the roads. I told him that a follow command is the most asked for feature of the game, and suggested that a nocturnal visit to Charles might help convince him to add it into CMBB. He said he’d check to see if he could fit it into his schedule.

Finally, he had to return to where old soldiers go when they pass on. Just before he left he gave me his e-mail address, and said he would send me a setup once his copy of CMBB shows up. Then, he snagged one last beer from the fridge, said farewell to all of us and with a bright flash of light he disappeared into the ceiling.

We plan on calling other souls in the weeks to come. I’ll post a schedule whenever I get around to it, but can tell you that Monty, Bradley and Guderian are on the list. We’ll even try to get Patton and Zhukov in the same room together. That ought to be fun. Has there been some follow up on this for CMAK? It might yield some answers to the much debated "fur jackets - did they or didn't they" and "how fast can YOU run through 30 cm of snow" questions currently in vogue, though of course it is too late to make changes to CMBB.

[Måkjager]

JonS....well..this is an OLD thread indeed..thats why it caught my eye this morning.

As to your "Query" regarding contact with the company....yes..i was able to get in touch with , and at GREAT EXPENSE (£5) ;) they sent me the magazine ii was looking for..the one with the article covering the demise of Michael Wittman.

I have just dug out the magazine article and guess what............
Trooper Joe Ekins was the culprit that day...........NO mention of Typhoons attacking the Tigers at that time.

Regards

Måkjager

[ September 19, 2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Måkjager ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Måkjager:
Trooper Joe Ekins was the culprit that day...........NO mention of Typhoons attacking the Tigers at that time.Hah! Take that, Mr. Smartass P51D!

I love it!

Michael

[JonS]

smile.gif

Who said we don't have patience around here?

[ChrisPanther]

Theres one thing that puzzles me about this. If the tank was wracked by a catastrophic explosion which blew the turret off, surely there wouldnt be much left of MW and crew left to bury.

[Michael Emrys]

Most of the explosion when a tank brews is from burning propellant in the shells. That doesn't necessarily set the HE off. So you have low explosive rather than high explosive force being generated. Still enough to kill the crew and lift the turret off, but it doesn't pulverize their bodies to dust.

Michael

[ September 22, 2003, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[GRUMLIN]

If you want to feed the troll.....email the magazine to get the authors details for that article (explain you are doing research yourself) - magazines usually keep lists of who they pay for writings for a looonnngg time - then track him down via the usual googlefun and ask him whether he based it on any other papers...hey presto, possible link back to p51D. Although of course you might get shot from a grassy knoll for being so nosey.

smile.gif

Grum

[Breakthrough]

It was a Firefly commanded by a Sgt. Gordon of the Fyfe and Forfar Yeomanry.

[Los]

Kingfish,
Please put General Freyberg on your list of souls to call up, as I'd still like to know why it took him so long to stop worrying about a seaborne invasion and really pitch in against those pesky Germans at Maleme.

Los

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PawBroon:
He got killed because he was overconfident.
Same for the Red Baron....This wasn't the case for the Red Baron, and I don't see evidence to support this for Wittman.

The Red Baron was worn out. He got careless. He got suckered in to a low-flying chase over enemy lines, and worst of all, he forgot to check behind him - the first rule of airfighting. His demise was sealed by Australian gunners on the ground, but the fact that he didn't break off once Brown was on the scene kind of indicates, to me, as far as the evidence I've read will take us, that the Baron was simply careless.

He had been fighting far too long, and he never recovered from his head wound.

Or, if you prefer, his luck simply ran out.

If Wittman was bagged at 800 metres by a Firefly, I am not sure how that leads one to the presumption he was overconfident. I would suspect that like Richtofen, he simply ran out of luck - the key ingredient an ace possesses, for if luck is against you, so is everything else. </font>[/QUOTE]Incidentally, to bump this one last time - there was some interesting research a year ago that indicates that Brain Damage was a contributory factor in the Baron's demise.

EDIT - a reread of this entire thread reveals Captai Wacky intimates this a few pages back. I work on a neuro ward in a hospital and can see some of the effects of brain injury every day. Way too much we don't know about the brain yet.

[ August 18, 2005, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Gpig]

Originally posted by Breakthrough:

It was a Firefly commanded by a Sgt. Gordon of the Fyfe and Forfar Yeomanry. In the new book, NO HOLDING BACK, Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944 - (By Brian Reid) the authour makes a pretty tight case for a Canadian from A Sqn of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers claiming Wittman's Tiger as KO'd.

This book also places Sgt. Gordon (and trooper Elkins) with 1 Northhamptonshire Yeomanry, not the Fyfe and Fofar (unless they are one and the same). smile.gif

Check it out! It's an interesting study.

Gpig

[Kingfish]

The (2nd) Fife and Fofar Yeomanry was part of the British 11th armored division, which did not participate in Totalize.

[roqf77]

well, bovington official allied documentation. and that of the germans. including a tank crew from one of the tanks that got knocked out claimed it was the british. not the canadians.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gpig:
Originally posted by Breakthrough:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It was a Firefly commanded by a Sgt. Gordon of the Fyfe and Forfar Yeomanry. In the new book, NO HOLDING BACK, Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944 - (By Brian Reid) the authour makes a pretty tight case for a Canadian from A Sqn of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers claiming Wittman's Tiger as KO'd.

This book also places Sgt. Gordon (and trooper Elkins) with 1 Northhamptonshire Yeomanry, not the Fyfe and Fofar (unless they are one and the same). smile.gif

Check it out! It's an interesting study.

Gpig </font>[/QUOTE]Gpig, I don't know why you keep saying this. Reid clearly states he can't say with certainty - that it is only a likelihood the Canadians "got him", just as it is a likelihood the British "got him." You are correct that the case for the Canadians is solid, but he doesn't pretend it is the "only" case.

You do have good taste in books, though. The author posts occasionally at army.ca incidentally and is quite well spoken "in person" as it were also.

[roqf77]

well. the case for the canadians ay be solid. but it has been explained to me that it is a near certainty that it was the british. i mean the tank was recovered in los of the british positions. not the canadians. the patrols path would of taken it past them too. did they knock out tanks to? maybe they knockod out of tiger tanks? and thought it was wittman.
but of course you cant be 100% sure about alot of things.

[Gpig]

Aye, Michael. I'm not saying it's certain. In fact, I did write "makes a pretty tight case" above.

I'll be the first to admit that ALL I know about the topic has been gleaned from Reid's book AND what I've read here (BFC forum). So that should put my comments in perspective.

In the other thread (in the CMAK forum) "fences and walls," I stated that "This book does put forward a great case for the above being true (Canadian claim on Wittman's tank). But like the rest, it is no sure thing."

Just wanted to be clear. (Also, I plead guilty for wanting to have a bit of fun.)

roqf77, the chapter covering the counterattack and Appendix E of Reid's book, shed some new light on the events. But he also states that nothing is 100% sure.

If you're interested, I could type up the chapter referred to (or at least the relevant bits). smile.gif

Gpig

[Kingfish]

Gpig,

Since you have the book (and I don't :mad: ) can you tell me if it states where the Canadian tanks were deployed when they bagged Wittman?

The reason I ask is because there is so much evidence, both physical and eyewitness accounts, that point towards the 1st Northhamptonshire Yeomanry as being the likely culprits.

AIUI, the Caen-Falaise road was the boundary line for the two attacking divisions of phase 1 of Op Totalize, which puts the 51st Div and attached 1st NY to the east near St. Aignan de Cramesnil. Wittman's troop advanced parallel to this road, and thus would have had their right flank exposed to the 1st NY. German accounts describe taking fire from the right, and British accounts describe firing on Tigers advancing up the road.

[JonS]

I got it yesterday (w00t!!1!), and had a quick browse through that appendix, funnily enough.

Basically, Reids positon is that
1) Wittman was closest to the road, and over 1000yds (metres?) from the 1NY posns when his tank was KO'd
2) Fireflies accuracy dropped off markedly after 1000yds (metres?)
3) the relevant Canadian unit (SFR, IIRC) were 'in depth', and to the left as looked at from the german perspective, with the 1NY closer and on the Tigers right. LOS from the SFR to the place where the tigers was KO'd was blocked
4) BUT, the Canadian regt CO (?Radley-Walters?) had pushed two fireflies forward on 'his' side of the road (the west side) to a sort-of hull-down position behind a wall. In this position they were approximately parallel with the 1NY
5) this put them within range of Wittmans tiger in the position it was KO'd, and more to the point made, them the closest CW tanks to that particular Tiger.
6) CW tankers were trained to engage the closest threat, so it'd make sense for the two SFR 'flies to have engaged Wittman first, and equally it'd make sense for the 1NY to engage the other Tigers first, which were closer to them.
7) Unfortunately, the relevant SFR records were detroyed in the short-bombing by the 8th AF that occurred about an hour later, so there is no way to really check that side of the story :rolleyes:

Regards
JonS

[Gpig]

Those ARE the main points.

A little bit more, directly from the book (pg. 414):

"Radley-Walters consistently has maintained that he moved part of his squadron, including two Fireflys, into an ambush position behind a stone wall in the area of Gaumesnil. In the ensuing engagement, one of the Fireflys knocked out a Tiger that was moving north just east of the Route Nationale, while he claimed a SP gun that was travelling along the road as destroyed. (This is from the authours interview with Radley-Walters in Jan 2002.)

His entire account in the book is as follows (pg. 420):

As for the Sherbrookes, as we have seen any logged radio reports of the battle were detroyed when its regimental headquarters half-track was destroyed by an American bomb later that same afternoon. Howwever the squadron commander, Major Sydney Radley-Walters, has recorded the events surrounding his squadron's part in the action of 8 August. His account begins after the series of local counterattacks which perhaps started as early as 0830 hours, were defeated.

"I decided that I should move forward to Gaumesnil and be in position to support the Royals [Royal Regiment of Canada] when they were ordered to capture the village. At approximately 1030 hours I left the woods and skirted the woods to the left until I reached the railway line, then turned south past La Jalousie until we reached the rear of Gaumesnil. I was able to get good cover during this move and had right flank protection from the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry and my #1 Troop as I moved the Squadron south behind the bush at Gaumesnil. The village was small but at its eastern edge near the Caen [-Falaise] Highway was a large chateau with a tall stone and cement wall completely around the property giving good fire positions to the east and south-east. That stone wall was still there the last time I visited Gamesnil in 1993, however, the chateau was destroyed.

[T]o the rear there was a large wooded area which gave good protection from view. As best as I can remember, I had eight tanks left with me and two were equipped with 17-pounder guns. We took up defensive positions about the farm and made holes in the stone wall so we were covered from view but could observe any targets coming north on the Caen-Falaise Highway and in the fields to the east of it.

I recall the woods to the rear of the village and the hedgerows around the village gave good cover, so moving into this location and taking up positions behind the stone wall, and around the village was not a problem. It was approximately 1115 hours when the Squadron was settled in its position. Except for a few individual German stragglers, the village was not occupied.

At noon we could see movement to the east of Cintheaux. There was a long hedgerow that ran east from the village out into the fields and our artillery was shelling this area and the village when this movement was spotted. It is my recollection that is was somewhere between 1215 and 1230 hours when the attack started ...... In our area around Gaumesnil the visibility, I recall, was thick with smoke and the German attack was supported by mortars and artillery as they moved parallel with the Highway towards Point 122. It is my recollection that the attack moved as a group with five Tigers leading the group well spaced with four at the front and the fifth leading a number of Mk IVs and half-tracks with Jagdpanzers.

One of the Tigers was running close to the highway beside Gaumesnil followed by two Jagdpanzers advancing on the main highway ...

When we saw the German attack coming in, I just kept yelling, "Hold off! Hold off!" unitl they got reasonably close. We opened fire at about 500 yards. The lead tank, the one closest to the road, was knocked out. Behind it were a couple of SPs. I personally got one of the SPs right on the Caen-Falaise Raod.

The other Tigers were engaged not only by my Squadron, but also by two Fireflys from B Squadron that had moved over to La Jalousie when the counter-attack started. Once we started to fire, the German column turned to the north-east and headed for the wooded area south of St. Aignan [de Cramesnil] ...... It is my recollection that we destroyed two Mk IVs before the rear of the German group veered too far to the east ...... When the action was over we claimed the Tiger beside the highway, a second Tiger which was at the rear of the advancing column, two Mk IVs and two SPs.


I'll scan the map later and add it to the thread.

The map is very informative as well.

smile.gif

Gpig

[ August 17, 2005, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[roqf77]

very interesting. however bovington have this info as well. and still believe it to be 1 ny.
as they dont recall any sp's i believe, only tiger tanks. also they claim to have engaged the tigers from about 800 yards and slightly over, this fits there position in. lastly the 17 pounder as jon states does lose accuaracy at that range but only with discarding sabot ammo, with apcbc which the tiger was killed with was perfectly accurate infact more accurate than most.
it seems like alot of german tanks got caught up in a well placed ambush, so there will be alot of confusion. i mean there were five tigers knocked out the british claim 3 the canadians claim 2. and the germans claim they were engaged by the british(wittmans group) and were in a group of 3 tiger tanks. but obviously you cannot be 100% sure.

[Michael Dorosh]

I sent a link to this thread to Brian Reid, who authored the latest look at Wittman's demise and whose work is quoted above. He could shed no light for me on the identity of the mysterious P51D, but - I hope I can safely say without betraying a confidence - P51D's statements in this thread have not caused Mister Reid to revise his thinking on this historical episode. Though if he wanted to post any additional thoughts, I think he'd be more welcome than our mysterious friend...

[roqf77]

it wouldnt surpise me if p-51 d was lewis.

[Gpig]

Here is a scan of the map, better detailing the area of the engagement. This is straight out of the book NO HOLDING BACK by Brian Reid. (and I hope I don't get in too much trouble for this.) smile.gif

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/725/deathridemap8qo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Michael Dorosh]

Can't think of a better reference for creating a scenario from; damn, even the contour lines are in there. Now if only they had included individual buildings...but that is minor, eh?

So, where's Kingfish?

[Gpig]

No kidding. I've already tooled around with laying it out in the editor. It works great. smile.gif

EDIT: But if Kingfish is going to make an updated version of this battle, where do I pre-order!

Someone (Moon? Rune?) did a CMBO battle called "tank warning?" where the terrain was VERY open. And for the most part it was. But there is some text in NO HOLDING BACK that describes hedgerows and covered approaches for portions of the 12 SS counterattack.

As for the details of the map, I have a question. What does the widening of the railroad tracks signify? Does it mean there is a siding/double set of tracks? Or does it mean for the stretch of tracks so indicated, there is a grade (up or down)?

Also, where the tracks cross the La Jalousie - Quarry road, there is some kind of "encirclement" around a portion of the tracks. Anyone know what that means?

THanks,
Gpig

[ August 18, 2005, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[JonS]

Gpig,
the bit to the W of Cintheaux is a cutting (embankments on either side of the track). The bit further north near the quarry is a built up area, to keep the tracks level as it crosses a wee valley.

So; dug down, and built up.

Jon

[Gpig]

Excellent! Thank you sir!

Gpig

[JonS]

No problem smile.gif

BTW, looking at that map, I realise my bullet point listing above is a bit skew-wiff. Compare what I wrote with the map, and make your own deductions about where my memory failed me ...

[Gpig]

You mean that the SFR A Sqn was actually a bit farther SOUTH than 1 NY, instead of parallel with them?

(Also, he had a squadron - 9 tanks incl his own - with him in Gaumesnil. Two of which were Fireflys. But a further 2 Fireflys of B Sqn SFR scooted on down towards La Jalousie once the counter attack started.

Gpig

[JonS]

Yeah, it was the two B Sqn flies I was thinking of, and completely forgot Rads posn in Gaumesnil. I was trying to picture the map in my head, and remembered that blob as infantry for some reason. Anyway, Rad's tanks were certainly in the right posn to deal some destruction from the flank - especially when the Tiggers rotated turrets to engage 1NY.

roqf77 - some of the Tiggers were within 800yds of 1NY as Bovington state ... but 007 doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Wicky]

I scoured http://www.evidenceincamerashop.co.uk to see if they had the aerial photo that was taken and used for the map but no joy. All they seem to have are shots of Caen taken before D-Day.

A contemporary view looking towards the Church in St Aignan-de-Cramesnil.

http://www.saint-aignan-de-cramesnil.com/media/img/gen/index/Vue_Saint_Aignan_cramesnil.jpg

If somone makes a scenario from that map I'd really like a copy smile.gif

[roqf77]

maybe true. like i said im not 100% sure. and i have not read this book. but the germans and britisah after action reports match up almost exactly.
The british knocked out 3 tigers and the canadian 2.
the wintess to wittmans death was in the group of tiger tanks. again there were people who claimed to see wittman bombed by a typhoon, so reports cannot be relied on.

[JonS]

Originally posted by roqf77:
The british knocked out 3 tigers and the canadian 2.Yep - no problem with that. And I'm fairly sure Reid covers that same ground. 1NY got the three closest to them, and the SFR got the two closest to them, which happened to include 007, though of course they neither knew nor especially cared who the commander was.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Gpig:
EDIT: But if Kingfish is going to make an updated version of this battle, where do I pre-order!No need to. There is already a (IMO) perfect recreation of this battle - "Cintheaux-Totalize" by the Desert Fox. You can pick it up at Der Kessel. The original is a CMBO scenario, but I am 99.9% sure he converted it to CMAK.

Someone (Moon? Rune?) did a CMBO battle called "tank warning?" where the terrain was VERY open. And for the most part it was. But there is some text in NO HOLDING BACK that describes hedgerows and covered approaches for portions of the 12 SS counterattack.You are probably thinking of "August bank holiday" by Franko, who by the way did design an Op called "tank warning' but that depicted some obscure, small-scale tank skirmish somewhere in Russia - Prokhorovka something or other.

E-mail me if you want the CMBO version of ABH. I believe Treeburst is about to release a CMAK conversion with some slight tweaks added in.

[Gpig]

Hi Kingfish!

***SPOILER WARNING***
.
.
.
.
.
I opened up Cintheaux-Totalize and had a look. It sure looks great. MASSIVE battle. But it does have a few major differences from the description of the battle in NO HOLDING BACK. (Though I'm sure Desert-Fox has built a fantasitc battle.)

For instance, Gaumesnil was reported as not being held by the Germans (save for a few individual stragglers). And Radley-Walters set up his Sqn prior to the German counter-attack. (Not the case in this scenario.)

Also, the Poles did not play a part in this battle, nor did any other Phase 2 Allied formations. Nor was there any CAS. (Not the case in this scenario.)

But of course, I get the impression that Desert-Fox tried to make a battle that gave you the "feel" of things happening. Also, he had read through a HELL of a lot more source material than I have (me basing my comments on ONE book).

Is Desert-Fox still around? I love the map he did, it looks perfect. I'm wondering if I could have his permission to do a NO HOLDING BACK version of the battle, utilizing his excellent map. (just for fun).

Gpig

[Kingfish]

Just a guess, but what I think DF did was get in as much of that August 8th battle as possible into a 60-turn scenario, so a few things are not exactly as described in the reference materials, both in time and location.

Note that with the exception of a few padlocked units in Gaumesnil, most German units in that hamlet are able to redeploy further back into the German setup zone near Cintheaux. This gives you the option of either recreating the initial fight for Gaumesnil, or moving the troops back as though they were stragglers from the RAF bombings, but reorganized into platoon formations. Meyer describes how he personally rallied these shocked survivors as they retreated past him at Cintheaux.

Is Desert-Fox still around? I love the map he did, it looks perfect. I'm wondering if I could have his permission to do a NO HOLDING BACK version of the battle, utilizing his excellent map. (just for fun). He is, and had given me permission recently to use several of his maps in some of my scenarios (although not Cintheaux-Totalize). Look here (http://www.derkessel.org/contact.html).

BTW, while you are asking for permission also ask him to finish up his operation Perch pack. He already completed the morning battle, the one where Wittman goes on a rampage, but there are another half-dozen scenarios to go. The maps are the best CMBO normandy maps I've seen.

[Gpig]

Thanks, Kingfish.

I've emailed Desert-Fox. smile.gif

[Michael Dorosh]

Hello gents - just got this from Brian Reid who has asked me to post this for everyone's edification (thanks, Brian).


As the author of No Holding Back, I am gratified by the attention my book has received on this forum. I must add that I have seen nothing posted here dating back to the initial question raised by Michael Dorosh that would cause me to change my mind regarding my conclusions. As those of you that have read my appendix which addresses the death of Michael Wittmann will know, I have been able to refute the oft-repeated claim that he fell prey to a Typhoon based on primary evidence, that is the RAF operations log books for 8 August 1944. The only three tanks claimed by 2 Tactical Air Force on that day were well away from the area in question.

Regarding the Allied armoured units, three regiments claim Tigers as a result of this engagement; 144 Regiment Royal Armoured Corps - one; 1 Northamptonshire Yeomanry - three; and the Sherbrooke Fusilier (no 's') Regiment - two, for a total of six, against five actually knocked out. Their positions can be seen on the map posted on this forum.

I still am firm in my belief that W fell to either of the latter two units, with my personal preference based on the evidence, and not on nationality, being the SFR. However I can not state so without reservation. A few weeks after No Holding Back hit the street, I had the opportunity to discuss the engagement once again with Brigadier General Radley-Walters (retired). Regrettably "Rad" is in poor health, but still mentally alert. He confirmed the following points I made in the appendix:

a. While he feels his squadron got Wittmann, he emphasized that the important thing was that the German counter-attack failed.

b. That Wittmann drove into the sights of one of his Fireflies does not mean the SFR was in any way better than the two British units. It was a matter of chance.

Now, regarding the map and the depiction of Gaumesnil as a blob rather than as a collection of individual buildings, I am afraid that was my decision, taken in the interests of time in a response to a query from Christopher Johnson, my map maker.

As for the information available to Bovington raised in another post, as noted the SFR headquarters half-track was destroyed by errant USAAF bombs. As well, the main headquarters of its parent formation, 2 Canadian Armoured Brigade, was also hit in the same incident. Furthermore, the brigade commander, who had moved forward during that night in his tactical headquarters, had been wounded by a bullet from a German straggler near Point 122 at 0630 that morning after he had dismounted from his Sherman. As a result both war diaries are less than complete. After all, the first priority that day was killing Germans, not reconstructing records for posterity. Thus, the engagement had gone unrecorded for several decades, and Rad had only realized its import in a conversation with Hubert Meyer on the actual ground in the 1980s. I have a transcript of a tape made by Rad regarding the battle, but have only provided it to the Canadian Forces Directorate of History and Heritage.

I would be delighted if any of you would care to game any of the engagements in my book for non-commercial purposes. All I ask is that you please credit your source while doing so.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Brian Reid

[Andreas]

Mr. Reid appears to be not only a first-class researcher, but also a thoroughly nice chap.

[Gpig]

Thank you Mr. Reid! Well done.

Gpig

[Bigduke6]

Hear hear. And thanks to Mr. Dorosh, for bringing Reid into the discussion!

[Kingfish]

On a related note, I found this article (http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/downloads/ahq/ahq065.pdf) while looking for info on another battle. Unfortunately, there is very little mention of the German counterattack (Paragraph 65).

Edit: Scroll down to the bottom for some nice OOB info on Op Totalize. Also, I would kill to have access to the reference maps.

[ August 22, 2005, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[WineCape]

Good snippets! Thanks Michael/Brian.

[roqf77]

fair play. looks like this will never be laid to rest.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:
fair play. looks like this will never be laid to rest. Parts of it will. The mythical air logs seem to indicate that no tanks were destroyed by tactical aircraft on that day. Otherwise, whether it was The Sherbrookes or the Northants, well, someone got him and no one really knew or cared that day where Wittman was.

[jtcm]

Br. Reid's done his primary research in the sources : that's what gives him authority, and not smug pronouncements about "we in the family of military historians". Well worth noting.

[Sergei]

Who gives a sheit, anyway? There's far more important questions in the history of mankind to be answered than how one German soldier died in 1944, which can reveal nothing essential about anything important.

[Gpig]

I'd guess that it would at LEAST be as important as a "sheit." Maybe even ranking up there with "a rats ass." But . . . opinions differ.

Personally, I find it all quite interesting. The achievements of the British and Canadians versus the Tigers. The poor tactics of the German counterattack. The cult of personality that has arisen for Wittman. And the fact that NOBODY on the allied side even Knew who Wittman was, until the next year.

Wittman who?

smile.gif

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Gpig:
Personally, I find it all quite interesting. The achievements of the British and Canadians versus the Tigers. The poor tactics of the German counterattack. The cult of personality that has arisen for Wittman. And the fact that NOBODY on the allied side even Knew who Wittman was, until the next year. Wittman who?
You're kidding they didn't know until the following year, didn't Ultra tell them something? BTW I have in a Villers-Bocage book (published in French and English in 2003) by a Henri Marie with plenty of good pics, descriptions and maps has some shots that were take of Michael Wittmann and others of the SS 101st sPz Btln taken on the 2nd of June 1944 by a war correspondent (Scheck) for his article "Six Tiger commanders destroy nearly 3 tank brigades" put in what's descibed as a soldiers newspaper " Wacht am Kanal". Also has a series taken of Villers-Bocage soon after the battle of 13th-14th of June 1944 that provided a colour cover for the "Signal" magazine issue no.16 for some time late 1944. With all that propaganda floting around surely the Allies must have gaied the intelligence and broadcasted it for raising their own troops morale. :confused:

Unfortunately Henri Marie gets a bit confused saying that first that it is thought that Wittmann and his Tigers had been attacked east of Cintheaux by 5 Shermans of "A" Squadron 1st Northhamptonshire Yeomanry , 33rd Armoured Brigade but then says that according to eyewitnesses Wittmanns Tiger was hit by rockets from a Typhoon attacking the Panzer from the rear! :confused:

I think I know who he is referring to as his eyewitness but he doesn't give any real detail about Wittmanns' demise for this threads purposes. Doesn't have the picture of 007 but plenty for Villers-Bocage with plenty of information for that of course as well. smile.gif

[ August 24, 2005, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:
some shots that were take of Michael Wittmann and others of the SS 101st sPz Btln taken on the 2nd of June 1944 by a war correspondent:confused:

[Michael Dorosh]

Sorry, was Wittman a squadron or battalion commander? Why would an Ultra message refer to a subunit commander by name?

[Andreas]

He was an acting battalion commander when he died.

I think what Gpig means is that it was not known to the Commonwealth unit that bagged his Tiger who they got. That does not mean that Wittmann was a complete unknown in the British Army, since e.g. his Signal article may well have found its way into the foreign press.

All the best

Andreas

[Brian Reid]

While Wittmann may have been known to certain elements in Allied intelligence, as Andreas points out, he was an unknown quantity to the Allied troops he was facing. I have read the First Canadian Army intelligence summaries for the Normandy campaign, and his name does not appear in any of them. Ditto for Ultra, and if his name had appeared in this product, without another source, it could not have been disseminated in any case.

Let's face it. He was an acting battalion commander and, as such, was of little import in the big scheme of things. It fell to a later generation to elevate him to near mythical status. Still, he was a good soldier who met a soldier's fate.

[Andreas]

Mr. Reid - let me be the first to toady up to you and point out how much I enjoyed your book. I hope you sell enough copies of it to get just rich enough to want to publish the already eagerly awaited (by me at least) follow-up on TRACTABLE, but not rich enough to quit researching for a retirement of leisure, as that would deprive me of another probably excellent read. smile.gif

Welcome to the forum.

With kind regards

Andreas

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Gpig:
I'd guess that it would at LEAST be as important as a "sheit."Sure, but who'd actually GIVE a sheit? I need some for my rose bushes.

You're right, it's interesting. So is the history of the body of Pamela Anderson, yet I don't think that either of them are really worth THAT much discussion and even research. Who placed the mine that crippled my grandfather, is much more important!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:
yet I don't think that either of them are really worth THAT much discussion and even research. Who placed the mine that crippled my grandfather, is much more important! So what are you waiting for?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:
You're kidding they didn't know until the following year, didn't Ultra tell them something?You seem to be badly mis-informed about the kind of information that came out of ULTRA, and what it was used for.

[JonS]

BTW...

Mr Reid,
thanks for your book, and sorry that the only discussion about it (so far) seems to have bogged down it this Wittman sideshow. I haven't had a chance to start reading it yet, but am keenly looking forward to it.

Best Regards
Jon Sowden

[Gpig]

Yes, thank your for your excellent book, Mr. Reid.

I was fascinated to learn about Canada's pre-war readyness (or lack thereof). And how they subsequently became a force to be reckoned with in such a short time.

Gpig

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gpig:
Yes, thank your for your excellent book, Mr. Reid.

I was fascinated to learn about Canada's pre-war readyness (or lack thereof). And how they subsequently became a force to be reckoned with in such a short time.

Gpig Four years? Only about as much time as it took Germany to invade Poland, France, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Estonia, The Soviet Union, Libya and Egypt. smile.gif

[Gpig]

I bet with all those countries falling to the Axis, those four years must have just ZIPPED by, eh?

smile.gif

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Brian Reid:
While Wittmann may have been known to certain elements in Allied intelligence, as Andreas points out, he was an unknown quantity to the Allied troops he was facing. I have read the First Canadian Army intelligence summaries for the Normandy campaign, and his name does not appear in any of them. Ditto for Ultra, and if his name had appeared in this product, without another source, it could not have been disseminated in any case.

Let's face it. He was an acting battalion commander and, as such, was of little import in the big scheme of things. It fell to a later generation to elevate him to near mythical status. Still, he was a good soldier who met a soldier's fate. I fully admit that I'm not so much mis-informed (as Jons posted) buy fairly badly uninformed about Ultra, so sorry for posting outside my, ahem, intelligence. I was cluching at straws a bit here. All the same I can't fathom that whoever was responsible not managing to find a way to dissiminate the demise of Wittmann to the troops and public somehow, at least as propaganda if Ultra or whatever had of informed them, since they are the ones who were likely to know about him. Apparently they did such tricky things with material that they got through Ultra AIUI.

Brian Read do you mean the next generation of Allied officers and armoured warfare experts / enthusiasts by any chance? Weren't the origionals capable of seeing him in some similar terms to how they thought of Rommell despite the SS runes and could have been positively affected by his killing for their confidence and morale? Possibly also used to confirm to Stalin that they were actually fighting even very successfully against East Front vetrans after holding back with such a long waite and now making it all worthwide, finally as promised? (ie; to have put him into the tally!)

[ August 25, 2005, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[jtcm]

acting bttn commander = of little import in scheme of things...

Two thoughts

-- only in armoured units do Bttn commanders actually get to lead from the front and shoot at people

-- next time I play CM and get beaten, as usual, i'll console myself by saying it wouldn't have mattered in the bigger scheme of things ! 8-)

[Brian Reid]

First, thank you, Andreas, for your kind words. You need not worry about me getting too rich writing military history; if I am lucky I will cover my expenses with perhaps a bit left over. As for TRACTABLE, it is not as well documented as TOTALIZE, so I shall have to do a lot more digging.

Re the propaganda benefits to be gained from publicizing Wittmann's death, I have no explanation why this was not exploited. It may have been that the Germans downplayed his demise, and/or the Allies did not pick it up.

[Zalgiris 1410]

No worries Mr Reid, sorry I misspelt your name above! redface.gif

[Wicky]

Quick edit it before he notices! (click the pen and paper icon)

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:
No worries Mr Reid, sorry I misspelt your name above! redface.gif

[Brian Reid]

I am used to it. I often see it rendered as Ried, using the English rule, 'i' before 'e,' except after 'c' or sounded as 'a' as in reindeer and sleigh. Reid, of course, is not an English word, it is Scottish.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Brian Reid:
Reid, of course, is not an English word, it is Scottish. Isn't that the same thing?

ducks and runs for cover before Emma shows up

[Zalgiris 1410]

Wicky I edit the hell out of my posts but a firm mistake is a firm mistake, now it's too late and in the thread.

Ha ha Kingfish, Scots are not English but are both of course British and there's the issue. Bloody Union Jack. :rolleyes:

(BTW I'm part Scottish of the Munro clan, go the Dons.)

[ August 26, 2005, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[jim crowley]

Well chalk up another sale for Brian Reids' book!

Following this thread led me to ordering a copy on Amazon and also purchasing a second hand, but expensive, copy of Ronald Graves' "South Albertas"

Both of these books look fabulous, and Robin Brass a publisher to watch out for.

[Gpig]

You are going to LOVE the SAR book, as well.

Kingfish did a few scenarios based on the St. Lambert Sur Dives battle where Maj. Currie (of the SAR) won his VC.

There is a thread in the CMAK forum w/some screenshots from the Dorosh/JonS battle.

Gpig

[jim crowley]

HeHe, you've got to love those Dorosh graphics!

[John Kettler]

I can't believe that I somehow managed to miss this thread--for years! It is, hands, down, one of the best I've read on the Forums, and I've learned a lot in the process. Had read the Wittman grave discovery portion of the AFTER THE BATTLE book PANZERS IN NORMANDY (still on my forever overflowing and acutely underfunded buy list) and Agte pieces myself, thanks to a friend, so wasn't entirely at sea, but knew virtually nothing from the CW side other than a brief account of Ekins in a Concord pub, I believe, and in the Forums since. I definitely wasn't aware two other tank units might've had a shot, but was aware of the Typhoon controversy.

One of the things I've learned is the meaning of the mysterious "PNP tagged." I half expected this to refer to some German acronym regarding a "no Nazi stuff law," but the explanation turns out to be altogether more prosaic. PNP stands for Personal Pronoun, and it's part of an elaborate structure described here.

http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/bnc2guide.htm#m2art

P51D may think he had a rough time of it here, but as someone who draws massed heavy flak practically every time he posts on even innocuous subjects, what happened to him was basically a nonresponse by comparison. I would've loved to see some sources cited by him, and I can confirm from direct knowledge that neither JDR nor INTELLIGENCE REVIEW is classified, having read the former for years while a military analyst and been given a stack of back issues of the latter by an Army reserve captain in Intel. The only classification stems from economics and maybe having to show you're either in the field yourself or are a journalist. It might be interesting to try to ID the guy based on what info he did provide, but I have other matters requiring my attention.

Regards,

John Kettler

[The_Enigma]

Last night I held a séance at my house and the spirit of Michael Wittman was called on. He appeared as a soft blue glow hovering over the dining room table. Over the course of the evening he floated around the room answering questions, stopping only briefly to snag a beer from the fridge.

He talked at great length about the Stug and Tiger, German tactics in general and his exploits at Villers-Bocage (talk about an AAR!). Finally, the question was raised about how he died on 8/8/44. For a while there was silence, then he took a long pull of beer, placed the empty bottle on the table and said ‘That &$%#@! Englishman in the orchard, Damn him to Hell!” followed by another long period of silence. We decided not to pursue it any further, and that’s where the matter ended. Possibly the best post on these forums!

:D

LMAO