You prove my point Dr. Lazarus. The Germans considered “Shermans” to be heavy tanks! LOL!
And for the record, the Germans also considered Troops Carriers to be tanks - the whole reason the Canadians invented the Kangaroo APC (Because German infantry always let the tanks pass through to the objective, then attacked the oncoming infantry)
As for the Citation, history books, and comments, they all seem roughly close - with something like 15 tanks being destroyed, and another 6 were debateable.
Where is the discrepancy here?
The only person, and place, I’ve seen anyone say Wittman scored “9” tanks, if from you. And the photo you posted doesn’t show me anything?
Also keep in mind, that the days following D-Day weren’t exactly “perfectly” organized.
It would not surprise me if the allies had other units/vehicles attached to whatever groups were moving around at the time.
I’m doing more research on the whole subject this afternoon. We’ll find out what “really” happened either way.
@wittmann:
Garg beat me to it, but I was going to say the medal was for blunting the 7th Division(and 30xxx) attack. Not for the number of kills.
Wittmann did not ‘blunt’ a Corps attack.
What happened is that previously unknown Units were encountered during a thrust towards Villers Bocage. Wittmann was just the tip of the thrust. The actions across the front on June 13th convinved Montgomery that it would be risky to continue the attack and he closed down the operation. What you have done is twist this to 'Wittmann with a single Tiger completely defeated an attack by several Divisions. Total fantasy.
@wittmann:
His action, 20 mins of it, allowed the Germans the time and opportunity to counterattack and prevent the potentially dangerous flank attack from becoming reality.
In a parallel universe maybe. What Wittmann did is best summed up by Wolfgang Schneider. He says:
"It is easy to judge the contents of the award nomination drafted by Sepp Dietrich. All the afore mentioned assertions are downright untrue"
Just to clarify things for you Schneider is the author of Tigers in Combat 1 & 2 and is telling you the claims made in the award citation I posted in my last message are ‘downright untrue’
and he further states:
"The reader can quite easily work out how many shots were on target: seven. And even if we take into account the artillery observation tank �armed� with a wooden gun and the light Stuart tanks, the number still does not come to 25. "
This is Schneider pointing out the claim Wittmann got 21-25 tanks is untrue.
@wittmann:
Maybe he never destroyed A Squadron as you say.
If there are no reports of it by the Regiment, then maybe it was a German mistake or propaganda.
The battle happened and the British were forced to cancel the operation. What did not happen is a single man in a Tiger stopped a whole Corps. A Squadron 4th CLY was destroyed but not by Wittmann.
Schneiders considered opinion on Wittmann at Villers may suprise you:
_"6. The hasty, single-handed attack on the large and powerful British force may seem brave, but it goes against all the rules (no centre of gravity, no concentration of forces, importance of the moment of surprise). The action that followed by the bulk of the 2nd Company and by Mobius 1st Company came up against an enemy who had gone onto the defensive.
7. The carefree advance of a single panzer into a town occupied by the enemy is pure folly.
Thoughtlessness of this kind was to cost the “tank commander with the highest number of kills” his life on August 8th 1944, near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank._"
What Schneider means is Wittmann should have held his ground and reported back that a whole British Armoured Division was on the move with open flanks. By proper reporting the assembling Panzers could cut it off and wipe it out. Given the choice of either doing this or gaining a bit of personal glory Wittmann chose glory.
Remember now this is what Wolfgang Schneider says not me (though I agree!)
@wittmann:
This withstanding, your rude counter to my 13th June anniversary post, has upset some here and could have been kept to yourself.
I presume
that would be because you prefer the fiction rather than the facts?
The Wiki account
South of Point 213 with his men of 2nd Company, 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, Wittmann was surprised to discover British armour advancing through Villers-Bocage much sooner than had been expected.[95] He later stated: “I had no time to assemble my company; instead I had to act quickly, as I had to assume that the enemy had already spotted me and would destroy me where I stood. I set off with one tank and passed the order to the others not to retreat a single step but to hold their ground.”[96]
Wittmann’s Tiger was spotted at approximately 09:00 by Sergeant O’Connor of the Rifle Brigade, who was travelling towards Point 213 in a half-track and broke radio silence to give the only warning the British force received.[69] The Tiger emerged from cover onto Route Nationale 175 and engaged the rearmost tank of A Squadron 4CLY at Point 213—a Cromwell—destroying it(1).[70][97] A Sherman Firefly responded but was itself ‘knocked out’(2).[nb 10] Burning, the Firefly came to rest across the road, impeding any attempt to either reinforce the ridge or to withdraw from it.[98] The British at Point 213 then came under fire from the rest of Wittmann’s command, losing three more tanks (Other).[98][99]
Wittmann now headed for Villers-Bocage.[98] Along the road the men of the Rifle Brigade desperately attempted to find PIAT anti-tank weapons and set up a 6 pounder anti-tank gun, but as the Tiger drew closer panic set in and the riflemen abandoned their efforts and sought shelter. Along the roadside, one by one the brigade’s carriers burst into flames as their fuel tanks were ruptured by machine gun and high explosive fire. (No count?)[98][100][nb 11] However, few casualties were inflicted.[11] Reaching the eastern end of Villers-Bocage, Wittmann engaged three M5 Stuart light tanks of the 4CLY’s reconnaissance troop. One, under the command of Lieutenant Ingram, attempted to block the road but was hit, exploding violently.[98] The other two soon followed suit. (5 total now + Unkown APC’s))[100][nb 12]
In the town the tanks of 4CLY’s Regimental Headquarters attempted to escape, but their reverse speed was “painfully slow”.[11] One engaged Wittmann’s Tiger, managing to get off two shots before being destroyed (6+).[11][105] Two others, their commanders believing they were being engaged from the flank, reversed off the road into gardens; 4CLY’s Adjutant, Captain Pat Dyas, found his Cromwell further screened behind a small barn. The Tiger rammed its way past the wrecked Stuart and continued towards the centre of town, knocking out one of the two British tanks(7+) but missing Dyas.[105] Lieutenant Charles Pearce took his scout car and, locating the rest of the reconnaissance troop in the middle of town, warned them about what was coming their way. While they quickly got off the road Pearce continued further west to alert 4CLY’s B Squadron.[11] Wittmann, meanwhile, had accounted for another Cromwell (8+),[106] and as he made his way onto Villers-Bocage’s main street destroyed two artillery Observation Post (OP) tanks—a Cromwell and a Sherman (10+)[nb 13]—belonging to 5RHA.[107] These were followed by the intelligence officer’s scout car and the medical officer’s half-track. (More extra Vehicles)[109]
Accounts differ as to what happened next. Historians George Forty and Daniel Taylor record that following the destruction of the OP tanks, Wittmann briefly duelled without success against a Sherman Firefly before withdrawing.[111][112] This duel collapsed a house that also contained a German sniper, as shells from Wittmann’s Tiger hit it.[113] In the Yeomanry Association’s The Sharpshooter newsletter, tanker Robert Moore recalls that he was the one responsible for forcing Wittmann to pull back, when a shot from his tank dented the Tiger’s driver visor.[114] These accounts attest that Wittmann’s withdrawal brought him face to face with Dyas’s Cromwell, which, having been bypassed, had been following the Tiger seeking a shot at its thinner rear armour. Dyas opened fire without effect; Wittmann returned fire and destroyed the British tank (11+).[111] Charles Pearce, however, puts the destruction of Dyas’s tank earlier, suggesting that Wittmann had engaged it by traversing the Tiger’s turret around before advancing onto the town’s main street; (Still 11+ either way)[115] a position supported by historian Henri Marie. Escaping the destruction of his tank, Dyas was shot at by German infantry positioned in houses along the street.[116] Wittmann’s Tiger is reported to have continued eastwards to the outskirts of Villers-Bocage before being disabled at the road junction to Tilly-sur-Seulles by a 6 Pounder anti-tank gun under the command of Sergeant Bray.[117][nb 14] However, Wittmann’s own account contradicts this. He states that his tank was disabled by an anti-tank gun in the town centre.[96]
In fewer than 15 minutes, 13–14 tanks, two anti-tank guns and 13–15 transport vehicles had been destroyed by the 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, (True and accurate) the vast majority by Wittmann’s tank. (Also True)[99][120] Now on foot, Wittmann made his way to the headquarters of the Panzer Lehr Division at the Cháteau d’Orbois, 3.7 miles (6.0 km) north of Villers-Bocage.[117]
-Again, I cite disambiguation, as the APC’s would have been considered armor/“tanks” by the Germans. Which validates the claim (the + symbols).
-Wittman was in command of the force that attacked 213, some of that is to his credit for seizing the opportunity too.
-The whole affair is incredible, and does deserve significant representation/merit.
The only point I can see you make Lazarus, is that Wittman destroyed 11 tanks himself, and up to another 10 vehicles. Â Instead of 21 “heavy” tanks.
This is all probably just being lost in translation.
Also understand that a lot of this allied equipment was -new- in the German’s Eyes. Â Wittman probably had never seen a firefly before June 13th. Â Or the APC’s before in his life, and it’s not like these guys had Wikipedia to cross reference.
False statements by Dr. Lazarus.
1. Makes no difference to my point. Wittmann was given a medal for destroying 20+ tanks when he got nowhere near that total. Massive overclaim or outright invention? You chose.
Proven False x2
2. Wittmann engaged at most 2 Stuarts from Recce Troop, 4 RHQ tanks and 2 OP tanks and possibly the rearmost A Squadron Firefly.
9 Tanks in total
Proven False.
The numbers claimed by Wittmann (20+ tanks) is demonstrably at least twice the number of tanks he even saw.
False.
Typical spin.
Innappropriate - unwelcome, and also false. Wittman (The AA.org user) had no intention to rewrite history, but rather remind us of the date/event at Villers Bocage.
The maximum number of kills he could claim was 9 yet he was awarded 21 kills. All the other tanks (A Squadron) were out of sight and over a hill.
How do you explain that?
Incredibly False, most of Wittmans kills were no where near Pt 213, but In villers Bocage… hence the term, “Battle of Villers Bocage”
Shall I continue?
As for the Citation, history books, and comments, they all seem roughly close - with something like 15 tanks being destroyed, and another 6 were debateable.
He left Russia with 117 kills Now he has 138. That is an increase of 21.
15 + 6 = 21. You might not want to face it but it is reality.
A fitting effigy of Dr. Lazarus’s argument.
Hollow… pointless… rusty… destroyed.
As for the Citation, history books, and comments, they all seem roughly close - with something like 15 tanks being destroyed, and another 6 were debateable.
He left Russia with 117 kills Now he has 138. That is an increase of 21.
15 + 6 = 21. You might not want to face it but it is reality.
Per my comments above Lazarus.
“The only point I can see you make Lazarus, is that Wittman destroyed 11 tanks himself, and up to another 10 vehicles. Instead of 21 “heavy” tanks.”
Shall I continue?
By all means keep digging.
So far your whole case consists of ‘I don’t believe you’
You have no facts no references just your blind faith in the myth.
The Wiki account
The Tiger emerged from cover onto Route Nationale 175 and engaged the rearmost tank of A Squadron 4CLY at Point 213—a Cromwell—destroying it(1).[70][97] A Sherman Firefly responded but was itself ‘knocked out’(2).[nb 10] Burning, the Firefly came to rest across the road, impeding any attempt to either reinforce the ridge or to withdraw from it.[98]
I said it was the best not perfect. The photo I gave you earlier clearly shows the rearmost tank of A Squardron. It is a Firefly. Note it is not
blocking the road and that there is no knocked out Cromwell near it. Try again.
Seeing as you are struggling badly here I will point out the account of the 2 tanks being hit in this position is based Wittmann’s own account given in a radio interview just after the battle. Wittmann got it wrong!
http://www.wehrmacht-lexikon.de/waffen-SS/konvolut/wittmann/audioarchiv/index.php
Shall I continue?
By all means keep digging.
So far your whole case consists of ‘I don’t believe you’
You have no facts no references just your blind faith in the myth.
I find this incredibly ironic.
You haven’t presented any facts. The photo you posted above obviously was taken several hours, if not days after the event (Everyone standing around); and most -if not- all of your statements have been disproven by your own source.
I’m very interested in the Wittman Audio, I’m going to get a friend of mine to translate it. Very cool site! Thank you for sharing.
.
Also the writer of the Wiki article is confusing Wittmann’s account of the 2 tanks he fired at on the RN 175-one of which could be the Firefly ‘Blondie’ shown below knocked out on the RN 175
and the Firefly ‘Allakeefek’ destroyed at Pt 213.
The photo you posted above obviously was taken several hours, if not days after the event .
It is from a film (one of two) taken a day or two later. All the wrecked tanks are still in the positions they were knocked out in (even the Tigers) and thus I can say with absolute certainty if there was a wrecked Cromwell near this Firefly it would still be there . It is not. If it was moved from a blocking position it still would be somewhere on the road. There is no Cromwell or any other tank near the Firefly ‘Blondie’. The next knocked out British tank in front of Blondie is over the hill at Pt 213.
The inescapable conclusion is the claim Wittmann made that he knocked out 2 tanks as he drove on to the RN 175 is wrong.
What Schneider means is Wittmann should have held his ground and reported back that a whole British Armoured Division was on the move with open flanks. By proper reporting the assembling Panzers could cut it off and wipe it out. Given the choice of either doing this or gaining a bit of personal glory Wittmann chose glory.
I read this too.
Wittmann jumped in a tank(had a faulty engine, so changed it for another) and headed towards the British through instinct, not any idea if self seeking glory.
All reports point to his being a humble man. He was doing his job.
He went alone, because he did not think he had time to mobilise his (under strength) company.
Now will you please leave this thread alone?
You have killed my enjoyment of it.
Think what you like. I like Wittmann. If he owes his fame to others’ lies, so be it.
@wittmann:
Wittmann jumped in a tank(had a faulty engine, so changed it for another) and headed towards the British through instinct, not any idea if self seeking glory.
All reports point to his being a humble man. He was doing his job.
He went alone, because he did not think he had time to mobilise his (under strength) company.
He did not have to attack. He could simply stay hidden and allow the whole of 7th Armoured Division to advance into a trap. He gave away the element of surprise and when the rest of SS 101 attacked they were met a a prepared enemy who knocked most of them out totally defeated the attempt to retake Villers Bocage.
@wittmann:
If he owes his fame to others’ lies, so be it.
Quite simply the most absurd statement you could ever make.
@wittmann:
Wittmann jumped in a tank(had a faulty engine, so changed it for another) and headed towards the British through instinct, not any idea if self seeking glory.
All reports point to his being a humble man. He was doing his job.
He went alone, because he did not think he had time to mobilise his (under strength) company.He did not have to attack. He could simply stay hidden and allow the whole of 7th Armoured Division to advance into a trap. He gave away the element of surprise and when the rest of SS 101 attacked they were met a a prepared enemy who knocked most of them out totally defeated the attempt to retake Villers Bocage.
@wittmann:
If he owes his fame to others’ lies, so be it.
Quite simply the most absurd statement you could ever make.
That’s what the French call - “Revisionist History”.
