Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2854
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 21 Jan 2014 20:35

Hi,
The British losses in the (total) battle were:
8th King's Royal Irish Hussars: 3 Stuarts, 2 6 pdr. ant-tank guns, 4 Bren gun carriers
4th County of London Yeomanry: 18 Cromwells, 4 Sherman Fireflies, 3 Stuarts, 5 half-track vehicles, 3 Scout cars,
Rifle Brigade: 9 half-track vehicles, 12 Bren gun-carriers, 4 Carden-Loyd Carriers
5th Royal Horse Artillery: 2 Cromwell tanks, 3 Sherman "OP" tanks

The German losses in the battle were:
101st SS Heavy Tank Battalion: 6 Tiger tanks were put out of action (of which 3 were later repaired), 1 Panzer IV
Panzer Lehr Divsion: 5 Panzer IVs.
What do you mean by (total) battle? 13 and 14 June? Didn't either side lose any artillery pieces?

I'm not sure about some of these losses either:

8th Hussars were not equipped with 6 pdr anti-tank guns or Bren gun carriers.
4th CLY did not have 5 half-track vehicles.
Rifle Brigade were equipped with Lloyd carriers which were different from Carden-Loyd carriers IIRC.

BTW I'm not sure we should be surprised that the loss figures were wrong, nor should we expect the figures for tank kills to be exactly right. After all there was a war on! I don't understand why anyone seriously expects (or desires) Wittman's kill score to be correct anyway.

Cheers

Tom

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7439
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Michael Kenny » 21 Jan 2014 20:52

Tom from Cornwall wrote: I don't understand why anyone seriously expects (or desires) Wittman's kill score to be correct anyway.
Its the scale of the overclaim. It is beyond simple error and is deliberate falsfification.
It is proof there was no confirmation or investigation before awarding a kill.
Wittmann just happens to be the one caught out.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7439
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Michael Kenny » 21 Jan 2014 21:00

WEISWEILER wrote: Eventually there were - apart from heavy tanks and half tracks - no less than 20 carriers (Bren Gun and Carden-Loyds) destroyed. 20 light tanks or in German: 20 Kampfwagen..........................................

The British losses in the (total) battle were:
8th King's Royal Irish Hussars: 3 Stuarts, 2 6 pdr. ant-tank guns, 4 Bren gun carriers
4th County of London Yeomanry: 18 Cromwells, 4 Sherman Fireflies, 3 Stuarts, 5 half-track vehicles, 3 Scout cars,
Rifle Brigade: 9 half-track vehicles, 12 Bren gun-carriers, 4 Carden-Loyd Carriers
5th Royal Horse Artillery: 2 Cromwell tanks, 3 Sherman "OP" tanks
.
Incorrect. The numbers you give above are the product of your imagination.
What you have done is consult page 7 of Taylors book and seen that A Company Rifle Brigade had a scout platoon of 9 carriers but did not read the bit at the top of the page where it states that the scout platoon were not even in Normandy on 13/6/44.
Even if we assume every single carrier was lost then it still is only up to a max of 9
8th Hussars were not even at Villers.

There was nothing remotely like 20 carriers lost. Even if you add all the carriers shown wrecked then the total does not reach 21.

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by WEISWEILER » 21 Jan 2014 22:47

Michael Kenny wrote:
Tom from Cornwall wrote: I don't understand why anyone seriously expects (or desires) Wittman's kill score to be correct anyway.
Its the scale of the overclaim. It is beyond simple error and is deliberate falsfification.
It is proof there was no confirmation or investigation before awarding a kill.
Wittmann just happens to be the one caught out.
Here at 6:45 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt2lfirJkVs
you can see Taylor himself telling that "many of the tanks were carriers". He also says in Russia many of the kills were light tanks, not all T-34 or JS. But he doesn't say those do not count.

In your own personal world only, light tanks do not count. Just heavy or medium tanks.

That's why your whole story is built on loose sand.

British authorities like prof. John Erickson of the Edingburgh University, and Dr Simon Trew, senior lector of the Royal Military College of Sandhurst, clearly do not share your piont of view. Whatever kind of tanks or armored vehicles were destroyed, they respect Wittmann for what he was: one of the best tank commanders in military history. They praise his extreme bravery attacking the British single handed, his unit out numbered and with no reserve standing by. They value his skills and dedication, not only in Villers, but all over his career in the war.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7439
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Michael Kenny » 21 Jan 2014 23:19

The problem is the huge disparity between what Wittmann claimed and what he did.

His award was for knocking out 21 tanks and he did no such thing.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7439
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Michael Kenny » 21 Jan 2014 23:28

WEISWEILER wrote:
That's why your whole story is built on loose sand.
You claimed that 20 carriers were lost at Villers Bocage when the book you used to get that number also tells you they had not all landed in Normandy on 13/6/44.
You introduced 8th Hussars just so you could add another 4 carriers to the list.
They were not even at Villers Bocage.

I think my foundations are a great deal sounder than yours.

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by WEISWEILER » 22 Jan 2014 01:03

I claim nothing.

The numbers are from various websites and quoted all over the internet. And the numbers I gave were of the total battle, so destroyed by the company. I suppose you can read?

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/michael-wittmann.htm
http://panzers2.tripod.com/wittmann/wittmann.htm
http://www.raidersmerciless.com/showthread.php?p=61989

But go on. Live your dream.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7439
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Jan 2014 01:25

The 1st and 2nd link are identical. All the information on Villers is taken directly from Taylors book. Anything that claims there were 3 Stuarts is taken from Dan's book because he is the one who first claimed there were 3.

The thirds link is very poorly sourced and mixes things up badly. It is worthless.


Much has been discovered since Dan Taylor wrote his book.

The most recent title would be this:

http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/a ... -1944/8372

and you will learn much from its pages.

A new book will be published this year which will further expand our understanding.

Try these threads to see which way the story is moving

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.ph ... opic=21545


http://www.tiif.de/thread.php?threadid=496&sid=&page=1

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by WEISWEILER » 22 Jan 2014 07:17

And the very last book will state that Wittmann... wasn't even in France at the time. :thumbsup:

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 19 May 2005 18:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Harro » 22 Jan 2014 07:47

WEISWEILER wrote:And the very last book will state that Wittmann... wasn't even in France at the time. :thumbsup:
Guess that last comment proves that you ran out of arguments

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by WEISWEILER » 22 Jan 2014 08:30

Harro wrote:
WEISWEILER wrote:And the very last book will state that Wittmann... wasn't even in France at the time. :thumbsup:
Guess that last comment proves that you ran out of arguments
It proves that it's boring to have to repeat the same arguments over and over again, to someone who just keeps ignoring them. :milwink:

I will repeat this one however. The entire battle took two days and eventually involved more German tanks than Wittmann's alone. After the battle the only thing what remained were a butchered British rgt and batallion. Then the 'kill count' started and it goes on up to this day. Who will say which one was destroyed by Wittmann or not? Who can give hard evidence? Nobody can.

Now hair splitters start to argue that all Kampfwagen are heavy tanks like Tigers. That's not even hair splitting, it's incorrect.

You're not taking this seriously, are you?

I guess you popping up means that Michael Kenny is out of arguments. :milwink:

And btw I can't understand why British were still equipped with these light tanks in 1944, since these type of carriers were already waisted in 1940 by infantry on bicycles with towed light PAK guns, instead of Tigers.

Instead of changing the definition of the word 'tank', I believe this question is far more relevant. It would help to explain why Villers-Bocage could happen.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7439
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Jan 2014 10:20

WEISWEILER wrote:I can't understand why British were still equipped with these light tanks in 1944,

There were no 'light Vickers type tanks in British service in 1944.
This is an absurd claim made because you are desperate to find an excuse for Wittmann using the word 'Kampfwagen' only 3 times.
Once in relation to the 21 tanks he falsely claimed he knocked out. Twice when referring to his Tigers.

WEISWEILER wrote:Then the 'kill count' started and it goes on up to this day.
Incorrect. The total number of British tanks lost has always been known. It was written down on the night of 13/6/44 in the War Diary of 4th CLY. The only reduction is in the number incorrectly claimed by Wittmann in person and for which he accepted an award.

WEISWEILER wrote:Who will say which one was destroyed by Wittmann or not? Who can give hard evidence? Nobody can.
We know which way Wittmann went into Villers.
We know the maximum number of tanks he could possibly have seen and thus we know the maximum number of tanks Wittman could possibly have knocked out.
This totals 10 tanks.
That sets an upper limit on his claims. Given that more than one Tiger was on that road (and it (231)was knocked out) it is also possible that some of those 10 tanks were not even hit by Wittmann's Tiger.

WEISWEILER wrote: Now hair splitters start to argue that all Kampfwagen are heavy tanks like Tigers. That's not even hair splitting, it's incorrect.
It was Wittmann who described his Tigers twice as 'kampfwagen' so the error is his.


It is never wise to enter a debate when your primary sources are decades old web pages or poorly referenced posters on obscure forums. What strikes me is your total ignorance of British vehicle types and your inability to differentiate between Regiments who fought at Villers and those who were many miles away.

You are to be congratulated on your dedication to preserve the myths about Wittmann but there comes a time when we all have to face reality.
Be brave and open your eyes..................

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by WEISWEILER » 22 Jan 2014 12:30

And what strikes me is that after all my posts you still don't catch the meaning of the word Kampfwagen.

And that's what it's all about.

One last time: the carriers in Villers-Bocage were also Kampfwagen, and eventually there were 20 destroyed. And I repeat; how many by Wittmann I don't know. Kamfwagen means every kind of tank, light tank or tankette carrying a gun.

Now I'm gonna do what al reasonable people do. Stop answering your stupid hard headed replies.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7439
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Jan 2014 12:47

WEISWEILER wrote:
One last time: the carriers in Villers-Bocage were also Kampfwagen, and eventually there were 20 destroyed. Kamfwagen means every kind of tank, light tank or tankette carrying a gun.
Incorrect.
There number of tracked carriers destroyed was not anywhere near 20.
Your number do not add up.


It is never wise to opine on a subject where you have no basic understanding of the issues. I know you are upset because a hero of the SS has been found falsifying the record but doing a quick Google of the action and reading 1 book does not make you an expert.

You should have heeded the advice you were given the last time you sought to excuse an SS icon.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1403499
anyone is entitled to have an opinion but if someone doesn't agree with your point of view than don't call him a liar or act like a wiseacre simply 'cause you read a book or surfed the net. There are in fact people who do know better.
I note you flounced off there as well........

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims.

Post by LWD » 22 Jan 2014 14:14

Michael Kenny wrote: ...
WEISWEILER wrote: Now hair splitters start to argue that all Kampfwagen are heavy tanks like Tigers. That's not even hair splitting, it's incorrect.
It was Wittmann who described his Tigers twice as 'kampfwagen' so the error is his.
...
To be fair he has claimed that "kampfwagen" means "fighting vehicle" and thus would include all tanks as well as other armored vehicles whose primary purpose was fighitng (such as todays IFVs). Such a usage would include everything from heavy tanks to light tanks to armored cars and weapons carriers. So I don't see any grounds for claiming Wittman made an error in this regard. On the other hand a best case seems to be that he ignored the transpositon of fighting vehicles to tanks in his award citation.

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”